Slashdot Mirror
Transhumanist Children's Book Argues, "Death Is Wrong"
destinyland writes "Hoping to inspire life-extending medical research, science fiction author Gennady Stolyarov has launched a campaign to give away 1,000 free copies of his transhumanist picture book for children, Death is Wrong. 'My greatest fear about the future is not of technology running out of control or posing existential risks to humankind,' he explains. 'Rather, my greatest fear is that, in the year 2045, I will be...wondering, "What happened to that Singularity we were promised by now...?"' Along with recent scientific discoveries, the book tells its young readers about long-lived plants and animals '"that point the way toward lengthening lifespans in humans,' in an attempt to avoid a future where children 'would pay no more attention to technological progress and life-extension possibilities than their predecessors did.'"
This is here .... why?
There's already far too many humans on the planet. If we stop dying there'll be nothing to eat and nowhere to stand.
when quality of life is what really matters? Maybe once we can create a sustainable society where people are actually happy we can focus on resource drains like people who never die.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Wow, I get the strong impression the author has only lived and traveled in developed nations his entire life. Its fun to wish for the things he writes about but they're unrealistic given human history.
It's especially awkward how he keeps saying he's not espousing a libertarian view and then does just that.
Grow up, death is desirable, just imagine someone like Zuckerberg alive forever.
No one "promised" you a singularity, it was a prediction like flying cars (which are an absurdity when you think about it) and a very small percentage of population deserve such things.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If only there was some way to prevent unwanted pregnancies... a sort of "birth control". Nah, better just resign ourselves and all future humans to the horrible infinite nothingness of death. Working on solutions to problems is hard! It's easier to just spout off some drivel about the circle of life.
Okay, let's only consider wanted pregnancies. Add people without ever removing any and see if overpopulation gets better or worse. Furthermore, do you understand how species development works? Have you heard of this "evolution" thing? Part of the deal is that unsuccessful traits need to fall away.
and look out a window. The last time I landed in Las Vegas I was stunned at how much of the us is completely and totally unoccupied.
Drive out to state college PA sometime - nothing but trees on either side of you for hours on end.
I heard a stat a few years ago saying the entire population of the world could fit into the state of Texas at the density of NYC. Yes, that doesn't account for infrastructure, and food production, but the point is that the entire world would be left over for that.
There is lots of room on this blue marble. Technology will find a way to support us all.
It's really sad to see the comments about life extension being bad or we are going to overpopulate the planet etc. They truly show the lack of imagination and understanding of much of the /. readership. There are some truly closed minds here among people calling them selves Liberals, Libertarians and Progressives. The reactions are very much like those of a society and system of thinking that thinks a cat can steal the breath of a baby, a society where superstition is given more weight than science.
The population models of Thomas Malthus were wrong. Paul Ehrlich's reuse of those models was wrong and reusing those same tired models will continue to be wrong. You are placing your hopes in Armageddon and self distraction instead of the creativity and ingenuity of humanity to make more from what we have than the last generation thought possible.
Stop being small minded lovers of doom!
It all starts at 0
Science fiction author "Gennady Stolyarov" isn't listed in Internet Speculative Fiction Database either, and the book's publisher, "Rational Argumentator Press" has a grand total of *one* publication, and its web presence is a section of Mr. Stolyarov's personal site. So what we're dealing with here is the self-published work by an unpublished crank sci-fi author -- not that there's any dishonor in being an unpublished crank sci-fi author. There's lots of us around.
I peeked inside the book, and what strikes me is that if you squint, this *looks* like a religious tract pitched toward children, right down to the colorful but stiff illustrations. Take a look at the cover, with it's child dressed in a blue oxford shirt, red tie and khaki chinos banishing death. This is peculiar, in a way that I applaud; an image pitched at children by someone so far out of the mainstream that she has no idea what a culturally "normal" child looks like. That's a good thing for the world, although it may not do much for the author's message. It's more important for people with an oddball streak to write books than people who think like everyone else.
This book appears to come out of the same impetus that underlies a lot of religious impulse: rage at the fact we're are going to die. It's a fact we *should* be uncomfortable with. Religion does the most damage when it makes us too comfortable with the prospect of death. The afterlife becomes a make-up session where we can do the things we put off line life like reconciling with estranged loved ones.
Anyone who regards speculation about technological singularity enabling indefinite human life extension as a "promise" is taking far too much comfort in what is, at best, an intriguing idea. But the universe itself has a finite lifespan; any being who could last to the heat death of the universe, or even a single 2 million century "galactic year" would be so far from human that calling it "transhuman" would be like calling ourselves "transprotozoans".
Whether we just disappear after a mere century or so, or survive as something unrecognizable as human, our opportunity to experience the universe as ourselves, as humans, is brief. We should make the most of it, no matter what we plan to leave behind when our human existence is done.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Furthermore, do you understand how species development works? Have you heard of this "evolution" thing?
That would be the natural tendency of people with normal vision to out-compete people with impaired vision, and for people without diabetes to out-compete those with it, right?
Didn't we kind of lose that pressure when we started intervening technologically by putting up audible crossing indicators, manufacturing glasses, manufacturing injectable insulin, doing allergy testing, developed cochlear implants, started vaccinating people against diseases, and so on?
Most of the historical evolutionary pressures on humans which kept the number of recessive genes in the gene pool small (because the people who had them who expressed the traits... well, they died, rather than reproducing..) are no longer applicable. Thanks for playing, though.
Even if we get the population sorted out, if we live forever, what drive do we have to accomplish anything?
Not everyone holds off on things simply because it'll be a while before they die. Lots of people just, you know, want to get things done.
Death is the drive behind making life meaningful.
People decide their own meaning.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I like this line of thinking. I mean, there's fish and lizards and stuff out there that live for hundreds of years... Why not humans?
I for one think that a longer life might be the key first step to that bright-shiny technological future we've been promised; Imagine what some of the greatest minds of our time could accomplish with an extra hundred years, or even an extra sixty.
Besides... Future generations should have a better life than us, otherwise what was the point?
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
> Without death, there's no evolution possible
Unless a species can modify its own biology, or the evolution of _technology_ or of _societies_ can be included. And in practice, it is: evolution is not just DNA biology, it involves entire ecosystems and behavior that are effective, but contained nowhere within the biology of a species.
I find it the essence of emotional immaturity to fear death so much we need to somehow eradicate it or even just call it "wrong." Death is quite right and quite natural. We'd do much better getting to know death as a good thing, as the natural term limit to our personal administrations, so that we can get out there and live...fully!
I believe the most powerful thing you can do is make death your friend. Let it advise you, guide you, make you stronger. It takes work, maybe most of a lifetime, but I believe it's well worth it, and certainly a much more sensible approach than railing against the bars of your emotional crib, screaming over not having enough.
"Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
- Deep Thought
Many people reach a point in life at which death is no longer an enemy but a welcome friend. Perhaps it is better never to hang on to that terrible point in life. Perhaps we could look towards the idea of finding ways to make end days enjoyable and concentrate more on premature death preventions. Once we can do those things extending life longer than a reasonable span would seem to then be a goal to establish. Imagine America with one hundred million Alzheimer victims with a greatly extended life span. What a nightmare that could be.
Because any geek who knows his/her science knows what forever means AND thus logically won't want to live forever
That does not follow, at all.
I doubt people are psychologically able and stable enough to _enjoy_ a mere billion years of existence. A thousand years, ten thousand years, maybe
Statistically speaking even if your body can live forever, some kind of accident will almost certainly kill you in that ten thousand year timeframe. So a real geek knowing that would have no problem with any technology that lets you live "forever" knowing the actual range of life will be "reasonably" short due to many other circumstances.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We'd be immortal, sure, but we'd be sad all the time, have incredibly low birthrates, watch some lesser race take over the world, and then sail into the west. What kind of life is that?