Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I dunno. Constraints give us meaning. They're what force us to make choices, and it's choices and opportunity costs that let us define who we are at people. If we lived forever, we wouldn't have to make any hard choices - we'd just do it all. And paradoxically, being able to do it all means that none of it means anything.

It's like playing a game with all the cheats on. Sure, they let you "win" super easily, but because it was super easy, it stops being fun.




Anti-aging doesn't prevent death.

You could still just as easily get hit by a car when you are 90 and look 20. Or 1000 and look 20, assuming that's even possible. What's really interesting is if people could actually prolong their lifespan indefinitely but we have the same limited bodies. Then you'll see people trying really hard to say alive to comical effect.

I think Aronofsky's The Fountain is a really great outlook on death. It is a disease and like any disease we may as well try hard to defeat it. Doesn't mean it isn't very natural.


That seems even more meaningless though, to make the moment of your death random rather than mostly-predictable. I mean, it'd suck to live my life like I had a million years and then get hit by a bus tomorrow.


A teenager got hit and killed by a car today. Probably seemed pretty random to them. What's the difference?

Hell, if age couldn't kill you, then you could chose your death, which is less random than a heart attack or stroke.


I'm not sure that was the outlook that film advocated.


It might be unthinkable to someone in the future that we could experience the universe meaningfully in 100 years.

I tend to see human-lifespan rationalizations as simple fatalism. It's okay to think you'd get bored after a million years, but dooming every living human to die because you'd be bored is kind of insane if you think about it.


> I tend to see human-lifespan rationalizations as simple fatalism.

But you are very mortal and you are at most a few decades old. Your perspective would probably change drastically in your third century or millenia.

It makes conjecture like this as good as worthless because as mortals we do not have the ability to see it from another perspective.


> Your perspective would probably change drastically in your third century or millenia.

I'd rather have that opportunity than not.


I wholeheartedly agree.


> If we lived forever, we wouldn't have to make any hard choices

No, if we lived forever, we would have to make a lot more hard choices, because we would have so much more time to be exposed to them.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: