A longer life for humans is not a good idea. We are already too populous and crowding out the rest of the biosphere. Silicon immortality is also a horrible idea. It will just further the goals of the machine and make an even more resilient machine. Death is part of life and it should not be messed with.
I find mind uploading/digital human life to be unrealistic but when it comes to living longer, to me that is a personal decision each of us must own (and it's basically the question of euthanasia in modern societies). If a person wants to experience the universe for a bit longer, why shouldn't they? We all understand "forever" really means a "very long time".
Of course this requires a trade-off since resources are finite. Without technological progress and changes in how earth resources are used then I would agree with you. Current population growth, or even just people overall matching their lifestyles on those from the most developed countries, just isn't on a sustainable path. But let's not be fatalistic like Malthusianism [0] either, society as a whole needs to become more proactive and open-minded in seeking radical advancements. I mention Malthusianism specifically because food production is a good example of where humanity is struggling to get right: it's an important source of carbon emissions and resource depletion (water, minerals), disrupts ecosystems, has adverse health impacts. Nevertheless there's a lot of friction in changing the status quo due to 1) economic pressures (from purely greedy behaviours to maintaining national competitive advantages) leading to slow-moving regulations and 2) superstitious views that ultimately oppose scientific progress (GMOs, lab-grown meat).
[0] based on an industrial revolution era prediction that population growth would outpace food production and lead to a collapse, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
I think there are really only two strategies here: some people like yourself advocate for radical advancement of technology. But technology has a horrible track record for ecosystem destruction. The other strategy, which I advocate for, is the stifling and dismantling of technology, which could become a viable one if the current society undergoes intense destabilization.
on the other hand you need to remember Earth is not a fixed stable ecosystem. If the concern is about sustainable living for humans, then (in my opinion) dismantling technology makes dinosaurs' fate is inescapable for us.
By the way, while I accept the label as an advocate for radical technological advancement, it's not at all cost, it's my own personal flavour: embracing technology embedded in a set of values that balances the individual's and the collective's well-being. The radicalism is more about avoiding technological progress from being generational progress (i.e. the well-documented saying "science progresses one funeral at a time"). Doesn't change anything to your argument but worth saying :)
A longer life for humans is not a good idea. We are already too populous and crowding out the rest of the biosphere. Silicon immortality is also a horrible idea. It will just further the goals of the machine and make an even more resilient machine. Death is part of life and it should not be messed with.
I find mind uploading/digital human life to be unrealistic but when it comes to living longer, to me that is a personal decision each of us must own (and it's basically the question of euthanasia in modern societies). If a person wants to experience the universe for a bit longer, why shouldn't they? We all understand "forever" really means a "very long time".
Of course this requires a trade-off since resources are finite. Without technological progress and changes in how earth resources are used then I would agree with you. Current population growth, or even just people overall matching their lifestyles on those from the most developed countries, just isn't on a sustainable path. But let's not be fatalistic like Malthusianism [0] either, society as a whole needs to become more proactive and open-minded in seeking radical advancements. I mention Malthusianism specifically because food production is a good example of where humanity is struggling to get right: it's an important source of carbon emissions and resource depletion (water, minerals), disrupts ecosystems, has adverse health impacts. Nevertheless there's a lot of friction in changing the status quo due to 1) economic pressures (from purely greedy behaviours to maintaining national competitive advantages) leading to slow-moving regulations and 2) superstitious views that ultimately oppose scientific progress (GMOs, lab-grown meat).
[0] based on an industrial revolution era prediction that population growth would outpace food production and lead to a collapse, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
I think there are really only two strategies here: some people like yourself advocate for radical advancement of technology. But technology has a horrible track record for ecosystem destruction. The other strategy, which I advocate for, is the stifling and dismantling of technology, which could become a viable one if the current society undergoes intense destabilization.
on the other hand you need to remember Earth is not a fixed stable ecosystem. If the concern is about sustainable living for humans, then (in my opinion) dismantling technology makes dinosaurs' fate is inescapable for us.
By the way, while I accept the label as an advocate for radical technological advancement, it's not at all cost, it's my own personal flavour: embracing technology embedded in a set of values that balances the individual's and the collective's well-being. The radicalism is more about avoiding technological progress from being generational progress (i.e. the well-documented saying "science progresses one funeral at a time"). Doesn't change anything to your argument but worth saying :)