sheerun t1_j3ph60p wrote

Death in nature originally served as a way to remove individuals from a population who are not able to successfully reproduce or contribute to the survival of their species. It would be nice if humans jumped over this evolutionary legacy, and offloaded evolution to organization level, instead of human level. Some would say it would be a way to accumulate wealth for these who use such therapies, buy we have the same issue with people inheriting and multiplying wealth of their parents. No death would change a little in the matter of wealth accumulation: no death = no inheritance. Overpopulation at worst can be controlled by law, but honestly when time comes we figure out how to not die, we'll hopefully also be in need of populating other planets. e.g. we could incentivize inter-planetary migrations to colonies on Europa (Moon of Jupiter) or Mars. Actually Earth-bored 200-old hyper-rich will be probably willing to go just for fun, while young low class will go for money, adventure, quick colonization. With possibility to go back of course ;) Also from what I know prolonging life is the best we can count on, as death is due to accumulation of "mistakes" our bodies make, so fixing them all will take like 1000 years even for AI. In conclusion I would not count on living forever, but I can easily imagine currently living humans to live extremely long, like 300 years.


sheerun t1_j3cmzkr wrote

From my experience the less verbose you are, the more (wrong) assumptions people make, also they point out exceptions to disproof your statement even if it is correct in most of the cases. So it's not bad by itself it is verbose, but that it is verbose when it doesn't really need to. And don't even get me started what people do if you try to explain something by non-perfect analogy.


sheerun t1_j1y5y65 wrote

For near future AI will continue to be a tool. It's like your children owning metal foundry while you are still blacksmithing


sheerun t1_j0n9iw7 wrote

That's why job market will always exist, so one can have better entertainment in life if he/she contributes anything to society. There should be no requirement to work to meet basic needs though, including basic entertainment, like $5000/month basic income or something, depending on country. I think there must be some nice mix between socialism and capitalism that will work for everyone, but currently no work = no food and no home, which is obviously bad


sheerun t1_j06kebt wrote

People forget universal income is not end of world order, just making sure everyone can have stress-free life when it comes to meeting basic needs like food or hosing. If we can get past this stress, people can be more relaxed, happy, and productive. Instead of waling around with crippling anxiety and depression.


sheerun t1_ixc3183 wrote

Alternating between jokingly suicidal and cautiously optimistic is great attitude when talking about topics we can influence a little. Like looming WWIII or end of things as we know them in case of technological singularity / plurality. I think everyone is scared a little bit of things to come, we just channel it into positive speculation, actionable defense ideas and jokes.