Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't know what happens. I don't have the solutions. I don't know which world is better. I think that the problems you describe are real problems, but not obviously unsolvable, and not obviously worse than the problem of dying; but I don't know.

But if you think that in the world where people don't die of old age, we should kill them ourselves - I want you to come right out and say it. I won't tell you that you're wrong.

But you don't get to hide behind "the natural order of the universe". That's not how ethics works.

If we should let people die in this world, we should kill them in that one. If we should let people live in that world, we should try to save them in this.

> human arrogance (for example, imagining that human agents might be able to change the aforementioned non anthropomorphic, non perceptable, non cognitively encompassed universe)

This just strikes me as bullshit. What are you saying we can't do, exactly? In one sense, we can't change the universe: the laws of physics are constant and inviolable. And yet we went to the moon.

But eliminating aging wouldn't be changing the universe in that sense, any more than eliminating smallpox was. Was that arrogance? Was it bad to mess with the natural order of the universe like that?



Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

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

Search: