Peter's thoughts on longevity, worth separating out into its own thread:
One way of rephrasing the live forever Q is: W/ respect to any single disease, should we be doing more? Should we be doing more to cure cancer? Should we doing more to cure Alzheimer's?
The answer is yes
One way of rephrasing the live forever Q is: W/ respect to any single disease, should we be doing more? Should we be doing more to cure cancer? Should we doing more to cure Alzheimer's?
The answer is yes
The question isn't: do you get a pill that can make you live to 1000? That's too abstract and ideological of a way to frame it.
Answering that general Q positively makes you sound weird.
But saying no the specific Q's (cancer, dementia, arthritis) makes you sound cruel.
Answering that general Q positively makes you sound weird.
But saying no the specific Q's (cancer, dementia, arthritis) makes you sound cruel.
The frontier of medicine today is different from the past, where death wasn't quite as linked w/ q's of aging, it was infant mortality, or the plague.
Today the epidemics are of old age. E.g. Cancer you have 1 in 1,000 chance of getting it when you're 30, 1 in 10 when you're 80.
Today the epidemics are of old age. E.g. Cancer you have 1 in 1,000 chance of getting it when you're 30, 1 in 10 when you're 80.
Some people are scared about eugenics or Nazi experiments or Frankenstein experiments, but that's not happening.
We're not in the world of Los Alamos in 1945.
We're in a world of Epicurean hedonism & complacency, where the dominant idea is that there's not much you can do.
We're not in the world of Los Alamos in 1945.
We're in a world of Epicurean hedonism & complacency, where the dominant idea is that there's not much you can do.
And our culture says you should just accept it, you should accept the stagnation of your lives, the stagnation of the West, you should accept the idea that the younger generation will do less well than their parents. And that's the light motif of our time.
We talk about living forever, but the truth is, we have trouble curing toenail fungus
We have about 100 times as many scientists today as we had in 1920. And yet progress is about the same rate, probably even slower
It's not b/c low hanging fruit has been picked, it's cultural
We have about 100 times as many scientists today as we had in 1920. And yet progress is about the same rate, probably even slower
It's not b/c low hanging fruit has been picked, it's cultural
Cultural problems:
Scientists under age 40 make most of the big discoveries and yet 2% of NIH grants go to scientists under age 40
Peer review process where nothing heterodox can be funded
Publish or perish dynamic, where they focus on incremental instead of fundamental.
Scientists under age 40 make most of the big discoveries and yet 2% of NIH grants go to scientists under age 40
Peer review process where nothing heterodox can be funded
Publish or perish dynamic, where they focus on incremental instead of fundamental.
Bob Laughlin won Nobel Prize in Physics in 90s.
He then researched an area far more controversial than climate science or evolution: How much actual important work was being done by his colleagues. Not much, it turns out. He got blackballed, despite his Nobel Prize.
He then researched an area far more controversial than climate science or evolution: How much actual important work was being done by his colleagues. Not much, it turns out. He got blackballed, despite his Nobel Prize.
Propaganda narrative among scientists b/c they're in in a Malthusian struggle against fellow scientists to get money from the government and the way that Malthusian struggle works is you lie and exaggerate more than your fellow scientists.
Cultural stagnation:
in 1960s ppl said don't do cigarettes b/c you could work harder & be smarter. That's not zeitgeist of our time
The zeitgeist today is marijuana. It's opioids. It's ppl in their 20s living in their basements playing video games, amusing themselves to death
in 1960s ppl said don't do cigarettes b/c you could work harder & be smarter. That's not zeitgeist of our time
The zeitgeist today is marijuana. It's opioids. It's ppl in their 20s living in their basements playing video games, amusing themselves to death
But evolution!
how far one should apply evolutionary logic the evolutionary paradigm to to humans?
In a business context, whenever someone mentions evolution, they're about to do something extremely cruel. They're about to fire somebody for no good reason at all.
how far one should apply evolutionary logic the evolutionary paradigm to to humans?
In a business context, whenever someone mentions evolution, they're about to do something extremely cruel. They're about to fire somebody for no good reason at all.
There are continuities w/ humans & animals, but also discontinuities.
One of the one of the great discontinuities, is that is that we are aware of our deaths.
So Darwinism isn't the way to make sense of death. Neither is Nietzche who said we need to go back to nature.
One of the one of the great discontinuities, is that is that we are aware of our deaths.
So Darwinism isn't the way to make sense of death. Neither is Nietzche who said we need to go back to nature.
"I remember when I first experienced this as a 3 year old child sitting on this rug made of cow in my parents apartment building. What happened to the cow, the cow died. This was extremely disturbing. But I can't go back to when I was two years old. I can't become the cow."
These other myths around death don't make sense either:
Nationalist myth: Meaningful to die for your country
Non-Christian Religious myths: Worship the spirits of the dead
Lenin: You need to break some eggs to make an omelette (wut lol)
Meaning isn't inherently found in death
Nationalist myth: Meaningful to die for your country
Non-Christian Religious myths: Worship the spirits of the dead
Lenin: You need to break some eggs to make an omelette (wut lol)
Meaning isn't inherently found in death
At the heart of the cultural malaise of the West is there's no longer teleology, nor the sense of a limitless open future of our society.
the default atheist position ends up being epicureanism. It's, you know, eat drink, be merry, for tomorrow, you may die
the default atheist position ends up being epicureanism. It's, you know, eat drink, be merry, for tomorrow, you may die
There needs to be teleology. If only an atheist project, it'll collapse.
"You know, atheists are very motivated when they're young.
I have nothing against atheists. I have nothing against old people. I don't like old atheists. They just don't work very hard anymore."
"You know, atheists are very motivated when they're young.
I have nothing against atheists. I have nothing against old people. I don't like old atheists. They just don't work very hard anymore."
"Teleology is like a woman of ill repute. Nobody wants to be seen with her during the day, but many use her at night."
Common criticisms: inequality, boredom, space for young people
"If you're talking to a five year old who says they're bored, the answer isn't, you know, hope you're gonna die soon
If you're concerned about inequality, the answer isn't, well, everybody should die so we're equal"
"If you're talking to a five year old who says they're bored, the answer isn't, you know, hope you're gonna die soon
If you're concerned about inequality, the answer isn't, well, everybody should die so we're equal"
Conclusion:
We're not in a promethium science moment, like Los Alamos in 1945. Instead, we're in an Epicurean world of stagnation & bureaucratization.
That's the cultural battle we need to fight in order to focus on longevity and, more broadly, reverse the decline of the West.
We're not in a promethium science moment, like Los Alamos in 1945. Instead, we're in an Epicurean world of stagnation & bureaucratization.
That's the cultural battle we need to fight in order to focus on longevity and, more broadly, reverse the decline of the West.
