according to this website (http://ravallirepublic.com/news/opinion/viewpoint/article_876e97ba-1aff-11e2-9a10-0019bb2963f4.html) it is part of 'aphorisms for leo baeck' (which I think is printed in 'ideas and opinions' but I don't have access to the book right now to check)
probably not, but why are you certain
That doesn't strike me as how psychology works, since in the real world people often repeatedly make the same mistakes. It also seems that even if your proposal would work, it doesn't address the original issue since you are assuming that the person has a clear idea of his goals and only needs time to pursue them, whereas I think the bigger issue which aging encourages is reorienting ones values.
I appreciate your taking the time to address my question, but it seems to me that this conversation isn't really making progress so I will probably not respond to future comments on this thread. Thank you
I would have to look around to see if there is non-anecdotal evidence, but anecdotally ~40 is when I have heard people start mentioning it.
I don't think your proposal would work since I don't think the time factor is the biggest issue, How often do people make big plans for summer vacation and not actually do them? They probably wouldn't say "I'll put it off for thirty years", but rather repeatedly say " I'll put it off till tomorrow" .
yes and that was the meaning of my initial comment, and that is a concern in today's world where we do have limited resources so that not everyone would be able to make use of such a technology. The country that has it (or the subset of people that have it within one country) will be motivated to defend their resources necessary to use it., This isn't an argument against such research in a world without any scarcity, but that isn't our world.
I am still not sure whether it is likely to be more beneficial or not for heavily emotional and biased humans like us.
Thank you for all of your clarifications, I think I now understand how you are viewing morality.
Maybe, but on the other hand there is inequity aversion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequity_aversion
Also there is the possibility of fighting over the resources to use that technology (either within society or without). Do you disagree with the general idea that without greater rationality extreme longevity will not necessarily be beneficial or do you only disagree with the example?
Why don't you view the consequentialist imperative to always seek maximum utility as a deontological rule? If it isn't deontological where does it come from?
"You keep using the words "we" and "our", but "we" don't have lifespans; individual humans do."
Of course, but "we" is common shorthand for decisions which are made at the level of society, even though that is a collection of individual decisions (e.g. should we build a bridge, or should we legalize marijuana). Do you think that using standard english expressions is problematic? (I agree that both the question of benefit for the self and benefit for others is important and think the issue of cognitive biases is relevant to both of them)
I just looked at your comment, and I agree with that argument, but that hasn't been my impression of the view of many on this site (and clearly isn't the view of researchers like De Grey), however I am relatively new here and may be mistaken about that. Thank you for clarifying.
Thank you, but that post doesn't seem to answer my question, since it doesn't take up how death interplays with our cognitive biases. I agree that if we were perfectly rational beings immortality would be great, however I don't see how that implies that considering our current state that the choice to live forever (or a really long time) would be in our best interest.
Similarly I don't see how that argument indicates that we should develop longevity technologies until we solve the problem of human irrationality and evil. For example, would having a technology to live 150 years cause more benefit or would it cause wars over who gets to use the technology?