14 KiB
[RT] The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant
-
Author: u/Zephyr1011 Potentially Unfriendly Aspiring Divinity*
-
Score: 60
-
Created: 2014-09-02T18:43:35
Post:
Comments:
u/Empiricist_or_not [+5] Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm (8 hours later)
There really should be a good way to establish this as foundation work for the subreddit. There is plenty of confirmation bias within us as a community, but there is a reason why people come up with names like "the great common task" for this theme.
u/Zephyr1011 [+1] Potentially Unfriendly Aspiring Divinity (12 hours later)
Foundation work?
u/Empiricist_or_not [+2] Aspiring polite Hegemonizing swarm (19 hours later)
I'm not sure how to phrase it, perhaps a recommend reading list for new members? There are plenty of long epics that cover these themes but this is it distilled as a short parable.
u/alexanderwales [+3] Time flies like an arrow (21 hours later)
Depends on what you want, but the list over at TVTropes is fairly good.
u/Zephyr1011 [+1] Potentially Unfriendly Aspiring Divinity (20 hours later)
You could try creating a new post and asking people to compile a list, which could be put on the wiki or something
u/None [+1] (2 months later)
[deleted]
u/RemindMeBot [+1] (2 months later)
Messaging you on [2014-11-22 22:19:36 UTC](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2014-11-22 22:19:36 UTC To Local Time) to remind you of this comment.
[CLICK THIS LINK](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[http://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/2fa6ef/rt_the_fable_of_the_dragontyrant/cma4rsy]%0A%0ARemindMe! 2 minutes ) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^([FAQs]) ^| [^([Custom Reminder])](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[LINK INSIDE SQUARE BRACKETS else default to FAQs]%0A%0ANOTE: Don't forget to add the time options after the command.%0A%0ARemindMe!) ^| ^([Feedback]) ^| ^([Code])
u/PeridexisErrant [+3] put aside fear for courage, and death for life (5 hours later)
An excellent parable, and a good thing to post here.
That said... I'm not sure what the appropriate tag would be!
[RT]doesn't seem quite right to me, since the setting and characters are clearly designed to convey a particular message rather than interact realistically. That might be more the style though, and it's not wrong.It has the flavor of a rationalist story, but by instruction rather than by example. What does that make it?
Is it SF? Fantasy? A genre deconstruction (of reality?)?
Discuss!
u/duffmancd [+3] (6 hours later)
Educational?
Personally I'd go for [DC] and [EDU]. It may not be strictly deconstructive but it has the same feeling of a story used to point out the flaws in something. In this case the something is our world rather than a story world. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
In any case it is a great story I fully support placing it on here.
u/Zephyr1011 [+2] Potentially Unfriendly Aspiring Divinity (11 hours later)
I was unsure which tag really fitted, but RT seemed the best of them. I wouldn't really call it educational for the same reason that HPMOR isn't tagged EDU, despite both of them teaching you something
u/othermike [+5] (a day later)
Am I really the only one flat-out terrified of anyone making progress toward life extension before we've reached any kind of workable consensus on long-term population control or wealth distribution?
I honestly see this as a doomsday scenario on a par with runaway unfriendly AI, but more likely in the short-to-medium term.
u/None [+7] (a day later)
Population is not such a problem: humans don't naturally want to have huge numbers of kids (really), and we can always just start getting tyrannical about things (what did you think was appropriate?). Wealth distribution is a major problem.
u/JackStargazer [+2] Primordial Apologist (a day later)
This times ten. Population fear is unwarranted. It's been proven time and again that by increasing life expectancy and reducing child mortality, you can reduce population growth. As countries get wealthier, they have less children.
Hans Rosling explains it better than I can, being an actual researcher on the subject.
The wealth distribution... that one's a bit harder.
u/othermike [+1] (a day later)
we can always just start getting tyrannical about things
Well, that sounds cheery.
Seriously. Civil wars have been fought over less. Much, much less.
u/None [+2] (a day later)
Well most people just stop having so many damn kids when they get wealthy. The remainder who would actually require active suppression are generally ideologically motivated, and well, what else do you do about ideologues deliberately straining the ecosystem?
u/Nepene [+2] (a day later)
That's not really a first world problem, we're more worried about population shortages because not enough people are being born.
u/othermike [+2] (a day later)
It becomes a problem in pretty short order if people stop dying.
u/alexanderwales [+4] Time flies like an arrow (a day later)
Assuming that it was distributed uniformly across the population, sure. But life extension won't be like that - it's going to come to the rich first, and probably in fits and starts as we eat away at the long tail. We're not going to conquer death in an afternoon, and not in a few decades either. Given that, there's no reason that we can't work on multiple problems simultaneously - the elimination of death being one of those.
u/othermike [+2] (a day later)
Well, we're both making unwarranted assumptions. I'm assuming worst-case because I'm trying to make a cautionary point, you're assuming best case because you want to move ahead with research. Yes, conquering all forms of death up to and including pianos falling on heads isn't going to happen anytime soon, but a general anagathic would trigger 95% of the economic issues associated with my doomsday fear, and we have no idea what that might look like.
Also, many of the issues don't need the technology to be available, they just need it to be plausible. Take pensions, for example. As soon as a working anagathic within a decade or two starts to look as if it has any chance of happening, annuity rates go to zero everywhere, and stay there forever.
You might think implementing a UBI or similar scheme should be a trivial problem compared to conquering death. You might be right. You might think the same about healthcare provision, but look at the US. You might think the same about housing, but look at the UK. Never underestimate how determinedly elites - elites who by that time may have no reliance on the general population either economically or militarily - can do the wrong thing when they aren't the ones suffering consequences.
I also think you're severely underestimating the likely resistance to a state veto on reproduction. Even the Chinese had a tough time with that; how do you think the Catholics are going to react?
u/Timewinders [+2] (a day later)
Even if we had an antiageing drug right now wouldn't it take around a century just to test it? And ageing, and the human body in general, is so poorly understood that I highly doubt that any treatment will be available for at least another century, which means at least two hundred years until it's distributed to even just the rich people. The human population is already set to plateau at around 2050, and might even decrease after that as standards of living improve in India and China. Higher standards of living are probably more likely to put a strain on the environment than population growth. Not to mention agricultural problems related to climate change, scarcity of fresh water, overfishing, etc. which might result in famines and many millions of people dying before then and possible societal collapse. So I think the risk posed by getting an antiageing drug too soon is relatively low.
u/PeridexisErrant [+3] put aside fear for courage, and death for life (a day later)
For full long-term testing, sure. That takes a long time.
However: if you give a cohort of 80-90 year olds the treatment, and after a decade they're much healthier than the control group... the old and powerful are generally not idiots.
u/Nepene [+2] (a day later)
In one or two hundred years maybe.
Plus we may be able to deactivate hormonal changes that boost baby making desires.
u/alexanderwales [+1] Time flies like an arrow (a day later)
Why deactivate the hormones if you can just give people contraceptives?
u/Nepene [+2] (a day later)
That helps too, but if people have baby fever then it's likely to be more of a problem. Contraceptives can be evaded.
We can't eliminate the issue without going a bit crazy but it'd be good if wanting a baby was voluntary. Would reduce the pregnancy rate.
From googling it might not be hormonal. Whatever. There may be some genetic cure instead. Something like that would be good so that women could choose when they wanted a baby based on their intellect more easily.
u/Izeinwinter [+2] (2 days later)
No, you are not the only one, because population growth doom fears are a perennial fallacy dating back ages. That part is almost certainly just wrong, because curing old age instantly kills two of the major factors motivating people to have kids (legacy, someone to keep things going in your old age)
And heck, thanks to the wonders of math, even given true "My mind is backed up onto the cloud, my home harddrive daily, and weekly onto memory diamondstored in the repurposed yucca mountain dig" immortality every couple could have one kid and that would still be fine (Generation sizes halving: End result slightly less than a doubling of population over infinite time)Old farts hanging on to all the wealth and all the power for ever? Uhm. Ever so slightly more of a problem. Already a problem even with them dying on their own.
u/othermike [+1] (2 days later)
I agree there are any number of scenarios where population might not be a problem. I'm a lot less willing than you to assume that they definitely won't be.
u/Izeinwinter [+1] (2 days later)
It's very unlikely to be a problem, based on all we know of factors effecting birthrates.
People dying of old age is 100% certainly a problem. A mortal one. For everyone that do not manage to get killed by something else. Thus, this is not a difficult question. It's a problem worth paying some attention to after old age is no longer a concern. At which point society will suddenly have a vast increase in the available labor force to throw at all problems - including in this case, "how to increasing the carrying capacity of planet earth". And there a bunch of obvious attack vectors on that problem. It's not, however anywhere near the top of the list of issues to fix because it will almost certainly just not arise.
"The Koch's brothers sticking around forever" is much higher on the list of problems to address.
u/VorpalAuroch [+1] Life before Death (a day later)
Past history suggests strongly that people really do adapt to incentives where expectation of health is concerned; higher success rates of raising children to adulthood takes only about a generation to result in lower attempt rates. This gives good reason to be optimistic that long-term population control is a comparatively easy problem.
Wealth distribution, on the other hand, it says nothing about.
u/othermike [+1] (a day later)
Lower attempt rates only slow the problem. Even if success were 100% and people only tried to raise 1 child apiece - pure replacement - population would still grow at 1 generation per generation if there were no offsetting deaths. Plus, we have no idea how human psychology would respond to vastly lengthened fertility windows. We know about "empty nest syndrome". What if it turns out that many people will naturally have kids every 20 years or so if given the opportunity?
u/VorpalAuroch [+1] Life before Death (a day later)
I don't know what would happen, but as mentioned, past experiences suggest that society adapts fairly quickly to new norms about lifespan. If the birthrate dropped to a tiny fraction of what it currently is, that would mitigate the problem to something very manageable, where we could construct habitat (in space, in arcologies, maybe just seasteading) fast enough to keep up with demand.
Also, remember that a century ago, the term 'teenager' didn't exist, because it wasn't useful. If people live longer, it's very likely that they will live with family longer, and we'll have some new term for not-quite-adults at a higher age.