logoalt Hacker News

jvanderbottoday at 5:07 PM6 repliesview on HN

I've always thought eternal life would steal from the next generation if resources are scarce. If your reaction times, intelligence, etc are always good, and your experience and memories get better, it just seems like you'd out compete your kids and younger cohorts. All well and good but basically stops genetic turnover that got us to this point.

OTOH, you'd accumulate uncurable disease, injuries, etc as well. Maybe you become a disease resevoir inside your own growing family. Or you pass on as-yet-unknown genetic anomalies that are unhelpful, and you do so forever.

Granted that's a modern take, and in particular a modern rpg-like take. Regardless though getting rid of oldies seems like a reasonable way to move a species forward if natural selection is driving "forward".


Replies

mjburgesstoday at 5:12 PM

OTOH a vast amount of mayhem and madness arises just from each generation's memory being wiped clean. Within three or four generations the earth lacks any sense of what risks came before it, and repeats the same stupid stuff.

If we were managed by the interwar generation, little of what's happening today would be happening today.

show 4 replies
ainchtoday at 5:33 PM

There's the saying in science that progress happens 'one funeral at a time,' but that's not because older scientists are less intelligent - it's more like they begin to intellectually ossify. Or in the arts, the critics that rejected Matisse's 'Woman With a Hat' weren't stupid, but their thinking had stagnated.

I think we underrate the value of a fresh perspective. People living longer lifespans would dilute that benefit, imo. Sidenote: this is also an underrated issue with LLMs and their application to science - collapsing to single modes of thought over time.

show 1 reply
Arubistoday at 5:25 PM

> I've always thought eternal life would steal from the next generation if resources are scarce.

This is almost the stated intention of longevists.

pavel_lishintoday at 5:14 PM

> If your reaction times, intelligence, etc are always good, and your experience and memories get better, it just seems like you'd out compete your kids and younger cohorts.

On the other hand, always being around as a sort of Protector to protect your kids seems like it would generally be good for your genes. (Of course, you'd have to fight off other Protectors who are doing the same...)

show 6 replies
_doctor_lovetoday at 5:22 PM

> getting rid of oldies seems like a reasonable way to move a species forward

This is the real feature of aging, death, and dying. Progress is measured in funerals, not years. If everyone lived forever, nothing would ever change.

show 1 reply
bitwizetoday at 5:12 PM

Sounds like an argument for pacing the frontier of geriatric medicine.