Modern Pascal's Wager adaptation: For real.

[soon2bepro]

If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes. Science as of today can extend people's lives, and will continue to be able to extend them as it progresses. It's definitely a possibility that if science manages to progress faster than people deteriorate, people's lives can be extended long enough to reach point X (where death by natural causes can be avoided).

Now assume that living forever will result in infinite gain. (not necessarily so, but at least there's a significant chance of this, whereas there probably isn't a significant chance that it will result in infinite loss, as you can just kill yourself anytime you want)

You see where I'm going. There's a slim chance that you have an infinite gain, out of a finite loss, so you should (rationally) put all your efforts towards this objective.

As I see it, this objective needs 2 things: 1) That you stay alive long enough. and 2) That science progresses fast enough.

So you should put all your efforts towards maximizing your health, minimizing your chances of dying and making world science progress as fast as possible.

Then again, we're not wholly rational beings, so I can understand that many of us (myself included), after being presented with this argument and finding it correct, still don't dedicate their whole lives to this end.

Anyway, if you find a hole in this argument please report it.

[AWoodside]

I agree. Transhumanism ftw.

[godBoy]

"If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes."

What makes you so certain?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
"If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes."

What makes you so certain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly... Have you heard of asymptotes?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes."

What makes you so certain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly... Have you heard of asymptotes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this argument, but I think it must ultimately fail to the mechanistic nature of human beings. We are machines. Machine parts can be replaced in the event of wear and failure. I have no doubt that a '69 Camaro can be kept in working order indefinitely, tens of thousands of years, even if none of the parts are original.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes."

What makes you so certain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly... Have you heard of asymptotes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this argument, but I think it must ultimately fail to the mechanistic nature of human beings. We are machines. Machine parts can be replaced in the event of wear and failure. I have no doubt that a '69 Camaro can be kept in working order indefinitely, tens of thousands of years, even if none of the parts are original.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Chez's point is that it wouldn't be the same '69 camaro.

I want to criticize your "body is a machine" idea especially with regards to the brain but I think we've been down that road already.

[godBoy]

This was my point, I don't see how it's even possible to say that a machine like the brain or nervous system could exist forever. This is obviously mere speculation because I have no clue other than at this point in time it's no where near possible.

Our body's are natural machines that will wear and breakdown, I don't think it's reasonable to assume with a 100% certainty that we will ever be able to 'repair' the vital parts of the human body that make me 'me'.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
"If science continues to progress exponentially, there will certainly come a time where people no longer have to die of natural causes."

What makes you so certain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, maybe it's not 100% certain. Still, we don't need it to be.



Oh by the way, I wanted to add:
You don't need to dedicate your whole life to this end to make it worthwhile. Every bit of dedication towards this goal is giving you an infinitely positive expected value. The more the better, that's all.

[m_the0ry]

I personally don't believe there will be a technological singularity. There are inherent quantum limitations on what technology can do. There is already a mathematical formula that posits the maximum amount of computational power that can fit inside of a specific volume and it (literally) requires harnessing the power of black holes. There's a ceiling on what we can do.

Technology progression is an S-curve (population curve, natural curve, stable equilibrium curve, whatever you want to call it) and we are nearing the inflection point but not an asymptote.

[doucy]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, if you find a hole in this argument please report it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be irrational for me, personally, to devote all my resources to this objective. Same reason why it's irrational for me to vote.