Longevity is neither necessary nor required for "running out of space".
If the mean person has more than 2 kids, the population grows until it can't, no matter how long or short our lives.
If we cure aging and all disease, our half-life due to accidents and homicide is (currently) somewhere around 1000 years — the same "2 kids" rule applies.
Alzheimer's, leading to not drinking enough water (not that anyone around her was aware of that until the coroner's report), leading to kidney failure.
Her last day was very obviously painful, and given the nature of the condition, I suspect that the instantaneous experience of pain was her whole universe.
My dad died from bowel cancer; took a year of gradually wasting away. That was also natural.
I would much rather spend another 900+ years with my loved ones (or however long I want) rather than being forced to die so ridiculously early.
Put another way: if you knew for a fact that you would get murdered 40 years from now, would you choose end it all via peaceful lethal injection today? I very much doubt it.
For every person dying "peacefully" on their deathbed, truly happy to succumb to death, there are 1000 more people that would do anything in their final moments to physically reset to the age of 20.
Also, think bigger - if technology continues to progress, we won't be biological a few hundred years from now. We'll be digitized, each consciousness likely spanning multiple redundant nodes throughout the planet or solar system. So these freak accidents are not relevant - nothing short of a cosmic event would kill you. It's highly unlikely that you'll die before whenever you choose to die - our lives would be indefinite for all practical purposes.
---
Edit because of the ridiculous HN rate limit:
> The "short" life span is one reason we take risks.
No, it's why you take risks. I'm happy to take risks - the fact that I'll die one day has no bearing on, say, my decision to go paragliding this weekend, or to push hard for a promo.
Risk does not necessarily arise out of the certainty of death, it can arise out of any number of other factors.
> I bet we would get a dystopia with long living dicators and short living peasants.
People have said this about most therapies historically but this has never come to pass.
Anyways, why throw up your hands and give up immediately? That attitude never got our species anywhere.
> Altered Carbon style, eh? Cool, sign me up for a cortical stack.
A bit more clever than that :) Individual consciousnesses could be distributed to avoid death from a single cortical stack being crushed.
1000 years would give me time to climb all the mountains, walk all the rivers, hike all the trails, and start a family, write those books, and learn to play those instruments, and still have time for a round-trip to another star.
Why does Gates give away so much money? Because the money itself makes no difference to his life any more.
Why do people leak documents? Because they think other people's secrets should be public information.
Why do we create ownership rights over information, such as patents and copyright, in the first place? To incentivise people to make more of those things. Why are these rights time-limited? Because nobody can, with a straight face, continue to claim they need any greater incentives than they already have.
Why go governments have Eminent Domain? Because the best interest of the people (or the nation) isn't the same as the best interest of the existing owners.
Why did the October Revolution and the Cuban Revolution happen? Because enough of the right people in the right place at the right time, decided that the old system of combined ruling-and-owning was bad.
Flack for his epstein connection? Fear of remote illness? Lot's of ways to reflect your self-interest.
> Why do people leak documents? Because they think other people's secrets should be public information.
Because some people are noble. Some people are corrupted by remote interests.
> Why do we create ownership rights over information, such as patents and copyright, in the first place?
To incentivize publishing of discovery. There's no obligation to publish discoveries.
> Why go governments have Eminent Domain?
Is Eminent Domain justly applied?
> Why did the October Revolution and the Cuban Revolution happen?
Why did my apartment catch flees? I don't know but we had that shit bug bombed.
I think you and I both would be part of some revolution but we differ on the likely conclusion. I personally find a lust for eternal life (except for your fruity loins) repugnant, lest the whole worlds resources become fuel for a gigantic cock sucking machine.
Do any of those alternative responses to my already-answered rhetorical questions change the fact that the fruits held by rich owners ended up on the tables of the poor?
I have literally no idea what you're doing with that metaphor in the last paragraph.
What I'm saying is that if you don't have good reason to think some vastly wealthy thing isn't building a giant cock sucking device then you should assume it is in fact building supreme cock sucker and not you or anyone will get in the way.
What does this metaphor have to do with "will the rich let poor people have medical treatment"?
Given that the rich are, as I have demonstrated via the example of Gates, donating money to make sure the poor have medical treatment, along with all the other examples I gave of the rich being forced to help the poor even when they don't do so voluntarily.
Longevity discovered by AI, implies[0] AI which is so good that none of us can work for money anyway — it comes with an economic change too large to make a reasonable projection of what happens next, as it's more different from what we have today than either Communism (any of them) or Neoliberalism is from Ancient Greek city states using electrum.
[0] but we can't say for sure until we have it, thanks to all the other things we assumed would need human-like AI and didn't, like Chess, Go, writing code, etc.
Maybe it's already discovered but they won't tell you.
Or it's an expensive procedure.
We already produce enough to feed everybody and still people starve to death. The problem isn't production but distribution and that isn't a technical problem but an economical and political one.
Money is power and the ones with power will do everything to prevent losing that power.
> Maybe it's already discovered but they won't tell you.
It would have leaked. People will buy literal snake oil in the hope of life extension, so even just a hint of this would have everyone capable of industrial espionage on the trail.
> Or it's an expensive procedure.
Given all the dead rich people, I doubt it.
> We already produce enough to feed everybody and still people starve to death. The problem isn't production but distribution and that isn't a technical problem
but an economical and political one.
Indeed, and I mentioned the food dichotomy in another comment.
But we also had the thing a few years ago where people were calling on Musk specifically to use his wealth to end world hunger. This resulted in "[…] tech entrepreneur Elon Musk challenged the United Nations last year to show him a $6 billion plan that would end world hunger, he got in return a proposal that would save 42 million people in 43 countries from starvation." - https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/how-much-money-...
And in case you blame him for not doing this, it goes on to say "Current estimates suggest that as of this year, we need donor governments to invest around $37 billion every year until 2030 to tackle both extreme and chronic hunger." which is more than his net worth at the time the article was written.
> Money is power and the ones with power will do everything to prevent losing that power.
For now.
AI, regardless of the impact on healthcare, is going to break that in much the same way that the industrial revolution broke the "land is power" apparent-tautology of feudalism.
> That's ca. a quarter of the US yearly military budget.
The USA != Musk personally, and he personally was getting flack for not personally fixing it, and he personally said (not a quote) "if you can give me a plan to do it that cheap, I will", only to be given a plan that wouldn't fix it and the actual cost of fixing it would exceed his theoretical net worth.
> But we still have feudalism.
As a response to the specific bit you quoted, that's just an argument-as-a-soldier, not an interesting point.
It's also an example of "tell me you don't know what ${X} means without saying you don't know what ${X} means" — given that Scotland got rid of the last vestiges between 2000-03 and Sark in 2008, the closest thing in the current world to that is North Korea, or specifically the 500 people who still have Common Rights in the New Forest and the use of an open field system in the village of Laxton in Nottinghamshire.
But none of that matters, as the industrial revolution still broke the connection between land and power; and human-level general AI will break the connection between anything currently resembling money and power.
Sure, it might also figure out energy before longevity or neither of them. I think what we are looking for is the vague ‘AGI’ goal and that, by its (vague) definition , is capable of finding multiple solutions to many problems.
Solutions clearly exist for managing diseases (we keep finding ways to give years to cancers that were an instant death sentence just 15-20 years ago); I have no clue if they exist for making us 180 in good health; I am not that smart.
And space flight is also solvable if energy is solvable and that also seems possible, but again, I am not smart enough otherwise I would be in that business.
Human conflict is solvable in a simple way; just eradicate us all. That solves all but longevity anyway for some definition of solve. But seriously speaking; if a human had a solution for these conflicts, they wouldn’t be there so either a solution without peril to humans is not there or we are too dumb to come up with one and need a 400 point iq increase to do so. I am not saying AI will ever do it but so far it seems to be the our only hope. Then again, it’s only been a few 1000 years of modern human so we might figure it out without finding AGI.
Anyway, currently this is more ‘religion’ (aka hope) than science on my side; there is no clear sign agi or super intelligence will happen soon; I am now more deadly afraid of ‘intelligence-ish simulators’ (LLMs) used everywhere to replace people and making everything vastly worse for almost everyone. Which is what’s happening at the moment.
Candida auris is a really bad example, given it predominantly affects people with weakened immune systems.
To make that point better, you could've gone for COVID-19, what with the number being the year it popped into existence.
But if you had, then the point would be: yes, the world is dynamic, that means our world needs to continue developing new things, not that we can't get eternal youth.
Yeah sure, by instant I meant ‘get your affairs in order’ type of message from the oncologist after detection. Aka an instant death sentence. For some kinds of cancer where you got that in the 90s, now you have a good chance of walking out cancer free. Like a familiar cancer gene my family has: agressive, nasty, death sentence after detection in the 90s. Now multiple family members have been treated in the last few years and walked out cancer free. That was incredibly rare 25 years ago even with early detection; now it happens even in later stages. If it comes back they are dead but still; every few years added might result in yet another bump.
But sure others pop up, not sure if we ever can stop that; this is where AI could help; tireless and very fast moving wack-a-mole with diseases, new and old.
True, not the best quality, but still fantastic results for a free model running locally on a laptop. Setting the steps between 10-20 seemed to produce the best results for me for realistic looking images. About one out of 10 images were useful for my test case of "a realistic photo of a german shepard riding a motorcycle through Tokyo at night"
Good point. I haven't done a lot of testing yet. I'm not sure if the default of 8 steps yields poorer results than 10-20 steps. Either way, it was fast on my M2 mac with 8 to 20 steps, much faster than other models I've played with.
I think your last chart is slightly incorrect: the game server is sending a message directly to the user, whereas it should theoretically only talk to the intermediate message queue (or frontend server)
