tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post5568036589040566286..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: Life Extension? No ThanksJean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-56580546622640466442013-01-23T03:58:43.262-06:002013-01-23T03:58:43.262-06:00Your main and fatal ethical flaw is that you treat...Your main and fatal ethical flaw is that you treat people as means for someone (you?) to enjoy how they replace each other to make life supposedly more interesting for that observer. People are not means. They are conscious living beings who can suffer or enjoy life themselves, live or die. And besides, people can find much more meanings in life than just reproducing. If you should not hurry Vovixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14694777979814631676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-14763841499287323952013-01-22T22:09:15.965-06:002013-01-22T22:09:15.965-06:001) I don't dismiss concerns about suffering an...1) I don't dismiss concerns about suffering and death--cavalierly or otherwise. 2) You're right about the error in the third model. 3) But your solution isn't quite what's needed. The question is: if people die at 150, at what age must they reproduce, so that population density remains the same as in 30/90? 4) I'm not convinced the passage of time is meaningless. If various Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-27231587062083720932013-01-22T20:04:28.121-06:002013-01-22T20:04:28.121-06:00Putting aside the appalling cavalierness with whic...Putting aside the appalling cavalierness with which you dismiss concerns about the human suffering brought on by aging and death, your 90-150 model is completely wrong. You have every generation except AB reproducing at 30 and dying at 90.<br /><br />To get population to stabilize at the same level as the 30-90 model, you just double both numbers. A 60-180 model, in other words.<br /><br />You Brandon Berghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14490308321355825389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-61863091026703780902013-01-09T08:55:54.945-06:002013-01-09T08:55:54.945-06:00Thanks for all the great comments. I think the bas...Thanks for all the great comments. I think the basic point here is that we shouldn't overlook advantages of numerousness. There are obvious costs, but also hidden benefits--if Ord, Sunstein, and Ridley are right. There are trade offs of course...like Wayne says, if people's lives are too short, there's going to be more investment in training and education. At some point, all the Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-58647489904140605582013-01-09T00:44:38.389-06:002013-01-09T00:44:38.389-06:00I think we need to define what we mean by "pr...I think we need to define what we mean by "progress". Better smart phones and faster rockets? Is progress going to make the average person happier? More eudaimoniaful? (See William Morris's News from Nowhere.) If the longer-life scenario required cutting the present global population by two-thirds, we'd still have almost as many people around as in 1950 -- an enormous pool of Aeolushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15772583359516799143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-10355415002817699792013-01-06T20:02:13.305-06:002013-01-06T20:02:13.305-06:00Strictly in terms of human advancement and progres...Strictly in terms of human advancement and progress, I hthink individuals living longer would produce more progress than the alternative. We spend a quarter of our lives learning and preparing for careers. If we didn't have to reteach a new generation as often we could get more people up to speed on the problems that need solving with the mental skill set if being able to solve it. <br />Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-75871426829193016292013-01-05T11:33:43.970-06:002013-01-05T11:33:43.970-06:00All these people (Ridley, Sunstein, Ord) think tha...All these people (Ridley, Sunstein, Ord) think that a large number of <i>different</i> people will bring about more progress than a smaller number of people living for more years. Same person-hours, but the increase in human diversity is advantageous. The reason why is because different people have different talents. To generate very complex entities like computers and rockets, you need all Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-2845582094494944132013-01-05T10:59:39.110-06:002013-01-05T10:59:39.110-06:00" The reason why 30-90 seems better is becaus..." The reason why 30-90 seems better is because it has greater human richness"<br /><br />why? as you correctly said the total number of person-hours is the same. <br /><br />You seem to assume that letting old Einstein die to replace him with a new infant increases the "human richness". I think that's highly disputable.<br /><br />We should model the way humans master Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-69096182427976010422013-01-05T01:08:23.498-06:002013-01-05T01:08:23.498-06:00nice postnice postPlay Angry-Bird Gamehttp://www.parksonsgames.com/abtradingcards/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-52802322987050535882013-01-03T16:23:01.060-06:002013-01-03T16:23:01.060-06:00Hold on! Nobody's saying "the more the me...Hold on! Nobody's saying "the more the merrier". We're comparing two futures with the same environmental impact, because the same population density. The question is whether a 30-90 world has any advantages over a 90-150 world on grounds that, though equal in population density and environmental impact, one yields a larger number of people in a set period of time. The Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-3778762100760622212013-01-03T16:09:02.265-06:002013-01-03T16:09:02.265-06:00What *is* all this nonsense about "human rich...What *is* all this nonsense about "human richness"? <br /><br />If you really believe in "the more the merrier" then why not let's all have 4 kids and double the population in a generation? The total number that the world can support in any level of comfort that is not painful is obviously limited, and there is good reason to believe that greater total richness of human Alan Cooperhttp://qpr.ca/blognoreply@blogger.com