> I don't think we should drop everything and start working on anti-aging. And I really think this is a very dishonest argument, btw
I definitely don't mean to paint every anti-aging proponent with this brush, and I agree that there's danger here in responding to people who say "I just think death is bad" with "why does this guy over here claim more than that?" You're not responsible for Bostrom's writing, you don't have a responsibility to answer for every person in the anti-aging movement, and I definitely don't mean to create the impression of a monoculture, I apologize for doing that.
But Bostrom is literally making the argument that we should drop everything, the text even advocates accepting significant compromises and costs in other areas in order to end aging. So to the extent that the Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant is a formative text in the anti-aging movement, then there should be some grappling with or at least acknowledgement of the fact that a formative text in the movement has these problems. I don't think I'm being dishonest at all about that; if Dragon-Tyrant is actually representative of anti-aging views then those views have got some pretty toxic baggage attached to them.
Of course if someone is just advocating "we should research slowing/stopping aging", then go wild, I don't have a problem with that or you. My objection is specifically to the phrasing of The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant. I don't believe the text is a neutral argument that death is bad, I think it has a lot of political assumptions/values built into it, and (worse) that it phrases those political values as a moral imperative for anyone who believes that death is bad. But you are not the text.
----
> Test-missiles were fired but fell dead to the ground or flew off in the wrong direction. In one tragic accident, a wayward missile landed on a hospital and killed several hundred patients and staff. But there was now a real seriousness of purpose, and the tests continued even as the corpses were being dug out from the debris.
[...]
> The king had undergone a personal transformation from his earlier frivolous and thoughtless self. He now spent as much time as he could in the laboratories and the manufacturing plants, encouraging the workers and praising their toil. Sometimes he would bring a sleeping bag and spend the night on a noisy machine floor. He even studied and tried to understand the technical aspects of their work. Yet he confined himself to giving moral support and refrained from meddling in technical and managerial matters. (emphasis mine)
----
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant is filled with quotes like this that are advocating for pretty specific political/moral worldviews far beyond "death is bad".
I definitely don't want to paint people with a broad brush and (while I suspect you are over-optimistic about both technology and treatment cost), I don't have a problem with people researching anti-aging technology. At the same time, I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest, deceptive, or bad faith in my reading of Bostrom's work, I think I'm applying a very straightforward interpretation of the text.
Fair enough. I'm mostly considering those paragraphs as artistic expression - it's a work of fiction after all. This might be most of our disagreement.
I definitely don't mean to paint every anti-aging proponent with this brush, and I agree that there's danger here in responding to people who say "I just think death is bad" with "why does this guy over here claim more than that?" You're not responsible for Bostrom's writing, you don't have a responsibility to answer for every person in the anti-aging movement, and I definitely don't mean to create the impression of a monoculture, I apologize for doing that.
But Bostrom is literally making the argument that we should drop everything, the text even advocates accepting significant compromises and costs in other areas in order to end aging. So to the extent that the Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant is a formative text in the anti-aging movement, then there should be some grappling with or at least acknowledgement of the fact that a formative text in the movement has these problems. I don't think I'm being dishonest at all about that; if Dragon-Tyrant is actually representative of anti-aging views then those views have got some pretty toxic baggage attached to them.
Of course if someone is just advocating "we should research slowing/stopping aging", then go wild, I don't have a problem with that or you. My objection is specifically to the phrasing of The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant. I don't believe the text is a neutral argument that death is bad, I think it has a lot of political assumptions/values built into it, and (worse) that it phrases those political values as a moral imperative for anyone who believes that death is bad. But you are not the text.
----
> Test-missiles were fired but fell dead to the ground or flew off in the wrong direction. In one tragic accident, a wayward missile landed on a hospital and killed several hundred patients and staff. But there was now a real seriousness of purpose, and the tests continued even as the corpses were being dug out from the debris.
[...]
> The king had undergone a personal transformation from his earlier frivolous and thoughtless self. He now spent as much time as he could in the laboratories and the manufacturing plants, encouraging the workers and praising their toil. Sometimes he would bring a sleeping bag and spend the night on a noisy machine floor. He even studied and tried to understand the technical aspects of their work. Yet he confined himself to giving moral support and refrained from meddling in technical and managerial matters. (emphasis mine)
----
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant is filled with quotes like this that are advocating for pretty specific political/moral worldviews far beyond "death is bad".
I definitely don't want to paint people with a broad brush and (while I suspect you are over-optimistic about both technology and treatment cost), I don't have a problem with people researching anti-aging technology. At the same time, I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest, deceptive, or bad faith in my reading of Bostrom's work, I think I'm applying a very straightforward interpretation of the text.