Acceptance of death is a rationalization... who's the author?

[David Latapie]

Hello,

At least one THS book has this quoted from the fictional Posthuman Consumer Review:

Acceptance of death is a rationalization

I'd like to quote this in a lecture about immortality. Who shoul I credit? David Pulver, Phil Masters? Someone else? Transhuman Space?

Thanks!

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by David Latapie

I'd like to quote this in a lecture about immortality. Who shoul I credit? David Pulver, Phil Masters? Someone else? Transhuman Space?

Whoever is the stated author of the TS book in question, I would say. I don't think it was me.

(It might be fair to make it clear that it comes from a work of fiction, though. TS is a game, not a polemic.)

[Fnordianslip]

If you want a non-fictional source for that kind of quote, I'm fairly certain Aubrey de Grey says similar things. Though I can't off the top of my head remember whether he said that in one of his TED talks or if it's discussed on his website. Either way, it might be worth a search if you're discussing radical life extension.

[Flyndaran]

Is it really that radical or novel of a concept? Death has always been the enemy. Dude in black wielding a scythe isn't anybody's friend... Discworld not withstanding.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Is it really that radical or novel of a concept? Death has always been the enemy. Dude in black wielding a scythe isn't anybody's friend... Discworld not withstanding.

Well, yes and no. If if were not for the need to survive, there would be no reason for you to have a digestive system, or a respiratory system, or muscles, or a brain, or sense organs, or a mind. All of those things are ours because death constantly prunes away those who lack them.

Back when I took population genetics, we learned that the rate of evolution is proportional to the number of deaths. A trait that gives you a 99% chance of death before reproducing will be eliminated quickly, and will only persist through mutation or chromosomal error; one that gives you a 1% chance can persist nearly indefinitely.

So everything you have, indeed everything your are, is the gift of mortality. You cannot have life without death; death makes life what it is.

Bill Stoddard

[Flyndaran]

What's best for the species is rarely what's best for the individual. And I'm an individual at heart. :)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, yes and no. If if were not for the need to survive, there would be no reason for you to have a digestive system, or a respiratory system, or muscles, or a brain, or sense organs, or a mind. All of those things are ours because death constantly prunes away those who lack them.

Back when I took population genetics, we learned that the rate of evolution is proportional to the number of deaths. A trait that gives you a 99% chance of death before reproducing will be eliminated quickly, and will only persist through mutation or chromosomal error; one that gives you a 1% chance can persist nearly indefinitely.

So everything you have, indeed everything your are, is the gift of mortality. You cannot have life without death; death makes life what it is.

Bill Stoddard

Well, that's assuming it is impossible to adapt to a totally new environment without death-and-birth-of-new-ones. In THS and after THS, that is unlikely to be the case.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, that's assuming it is impossible to adapt to a totally new environment without death-and-birth-of-new-ones. In THS and after THS, that is unlikely to be the case.

It doesn't matter what the mechanism of adaptation is. We have mechanisms other than survival of the fittest: vertebrates in general are able to learn, and humans are able to maintain languages and cultures. But adaptation has to be adaptation to specific conditions. If the ultimate question is life and death, adaptation will be acquisition of traits that make for life. If death is no longer an issue, there's no reason to maintain such traits; instead you will get deterioration of pro-survival traits, including perceptiveness and intelligence, and enhancement of traits that are favored for other reasons.

Look at the evolution of parasites. A tapeworm has no survival problem; it's in an environment where its biological needs are met without effort on its part. So its "adaptation" has involved losing motility, perception, even the ability to digest food, and turning into a vast machine for cranking out new tapeworms. The life without struggle and without risk of death that you aspire to is a life that favors such adaptations—because maintaining anything else is an unproductive and unnecessary effort.

Except that in what you're envisioning, there wouldn't even be the need to make an effort to reproduce and infect new hosts.

Bill Stoddard

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

What's best for the species is rarely what's best for the individual. And I'm an individual at heart.

Evolutionary biology has nothing whatever to do with the good of the species. In fact it doesn't even make sense to talk about such a thing arising from Darwinian natural selection.

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

It doesn't matter what the mechanism of adaptation is. We have mechanisms other than survival of the fittest: vertebrates in general are able to learn, and humans are able to maintain languages and cultures. But adaptation has to be adaptation to specific conditions. If the ultimate question is life and death, adaptation will be acquisition of traits that make for life. If death is no longer an issue, there's no reason to maintain such traits; instead you will get deterioration of pro-survival traits, including perceptiveness and intelligence, and enhancement of traits that are favored for other reasons.

Look at the evolution of parasites. A tapeworm has no survival problem; it's in an environment where its biological needs are met without effort on its part. So its "adaptation" has involved losing motility, perception, even the ability to digest food, and turning into a vast machine for cranking out new tapeworms. The life without struggle and without risk of death that you aspire to is a life that favors such adaptations—because maintaining anything else is an unproductive and unnecessary effort.

Except that in what you're envisioning, there wouldn't even be the need to make an effort to reproduce and infect new hosts.

Bill Stoddard

The lines are blurry. One could say that this is similar (but of course not identical) to what current humanity does - instead of focusing on traits that help survive in the environment, humanity focuses on making a huge machine (i.e. civilization) that provides a nice environment with a longer expected average lifetime, fun factor, and some other bits.

Likewise, the tapeworm, having found its niche, maintains the species survival by ensuring access to said niche, not by being physically tough.