0
0

An Economic Problem with "Eternal Life" (self.TrueAtheism)

portabledavers が 投稿

Ok, so this issue actually only occurs, I think, among those religious people who are also economic conservatives who believe in the merits of free markets and capitalism. I'm not going to argue one way or another on that.

What I want to focus on is the standing theory of value within capitalistic systems: supply and demand. When we place products on the market, how we value that item for purchase is based on two things: how many of these are already available for purchase elsewhere and how much do I want/need. If our demand is constant, then adding more of a product will decrease the value of all alike products. Most people know this, I just wanted to lay it out.

The problem arises when we accept this theory of value but also want to believe in an afterlife. "Eternal life" in the "Kingdom of God" Sounds nice at face value, but our valuing an eternal paradise just doesn't make sense given that theory. If that theory of value stands then we ought not value the prospect of eternal life. If demand is constant, then making supply infinite causes the value to drop to zero.

Again, this is only a problem if you accept both of those ideas at the same time. You can fix it by accepting either a different value theory or a different metaphysical prospect. The problem with the first one is that this theory of value is so deeply ingrained in our economy and lifestyles. My answer is to abandon the whole idea of afterlife and accept that my life is a finite thing. This justifies my feeling that my life has value, at least to me.

So how do you guys feel about this issue? Do you agree or do you think that there are ways around it? Or do you have a different solution?

全 30 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]jarobat 23ポイント24ポイント  (4子コメント)

I want to talk about this line. You repeat this concept multiple times.

If demand is constant, then making supply infinite causes the value to drop to zero.

Don't mix up price and value. You wouldn't pay for air in today's world, but you value it higher than anything else. If air became scarce, the price would skyrocket, but the value would remain the same.

I personally value eternal life similarly to how I value air. And no matter how plentiful eternal life becomes (for example due to the singularity), I will still value it highly. The price of eternal life would go very very high if it became available to only a few people, but the value again would have remained the same.

[–]portabledavers[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I see what your saying. But wouldn't you say that price is at least tethered to supposed value?

[–]jarobat 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not directly. Value can drive demand, but price is tethered to the, supply to demand comparison.

[–]portabledavers[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I see. Like I said to someone else, I guess my mistake was making it analogous to economics. I'm trying to argue why eternal life or immortality or heaven wouldn't be ideal.

[–]BlueApollo 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

As an economist I think the better analogy is to the law of diminishing returns. At some point heaven and hell become equal because eternity.

[–]August3 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Different realm - different rules.

[–]PonaldRaul 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

You don't seem to have a super firm grasp of economics. Keep in mind the dependent variable for the supply demand curve is price. So as price falls to zero, EDIT: QUANTITY demandED is maximized [can't believe I made that mistake]. That doesn't mean it is not valued. If anything, more people now value it more than their cost (which is price - 0 - plus opportunity cost).

[–]portabledavers[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I didn't realize that. Ok, I guess there's a huge flaw in my reasoning. I was just trying to explain why I don't like the idea of eternal life. It seemed to me that I value life because of its limitations. For example (and this is seperate from my original post) but if I couldn't be killed, I feel like I wouldn't see the point in doing anything. It would seem like my life had lost something important, like it would go to maximum quantity and zero quality. So I guess the issue isn't value directly, but the lack of purpose in such a situation. It seems to me that heaven would be just a huge existential crisis.

[–]ronin1066 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

To me, nothing has true objective value unless it has a permanent effect or existence. So my finite life has value to me, but an infinite life (perhaps with an option to end it when I choose) sounds appealing.

[–]portabledavers[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Why are things only valuable when they have a "permanent effect or existence"? Almost nothing would be valuable in that light, since almost everything is temporary. And the things which do have "permanent effect or existence" may not be considered valuable in and of themselves.

[–]ronin1066 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Nothing is valuable inherently, that's my point. I'm a nihilist. Soon everything humans have created will be less than dust. Everything we've done will be meaningless, so it already is.

[–]JLMA 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I find your position reasonable and coherent.

Now, when it comes to everyday matters, do you allow or inhibit (your) Nihilism to/from guiding your decisions? Like at work, with friends, with family? Does the happy feeling of something good get dismissed because it is finite?

thank you

[–]ronin1066 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not the happiness; I imagine life as a chimp where they have no clue what their existence is all about yet feel many of the same emotions we do. It seems silly to squelch my happiness just bc I know it's meaningless. However, it does affect decisions and goals. Sometimes in an inhibitory way, sometimes in a liberating way.

[–]portabledavers[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh, I see. So the whole "valuable things have a permanent effect or existence" comment is a criterion? What I mean is, you believe that only something which fits that description could ever be said to be valuable, but also that there is nothing which fits that description?

[–]ronin1066 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Correct. That's my criteria. And nothing fits the bill.

[–]utu_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

one day we will hack our bodies and have eternal life in this reality, I fail to see how that will devalue life though, if anything it increases the value because it makes the product better.

cloning on the other hand.. what makes you valuable when there's 100 of you?

[–]portabledavers[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

It's not about me though, it's about what I do. What obstacles I overcome. What I accomplish. Immortality sounds so... boring.

[–]utu_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

that's because you have a boring imagination.

immortality in the real sense (not some stupid ass fairy tale where you go to a clouded community and live forever as a human) would be a journey of evolution. it would be a journey of knowledge, a journey of mastering the universe. a journey of ascension to a different plane of consciousness, one where your thoughts aren't consequences of your biology..

[–]portabledavers[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

that's because you have a boring imagination.

Look, I get what you're saying, but think about it. There are three factors that make me think that I'd be happier living a life and dying at the end.

  1. Entropy is real. All I can think about is that short story where humanity develops immortality technology. All they can do is postpone the inevitable death of the universe. In the end all things are temporary.

  2. My time perception and memory will only get worse. Every year will become a moment and every non immortal life will mean as much as a goldfish. The millenia will wear on my psyche like a chemical wash until I'm a stoic, unimpressed nightmare of a former human being.

  3. You won't be special when everyone else is immortal too. Everything becomes boring. Oh, you developed silicon based life? Yeah, that was cool the first time but now it's old hatte. What is that, a galaxy? Not much different to the others we've discovered.

Finally, I'm not saying it's bad to try to develop such tech. If I could live a hundred years and die healthy that would be awesome. But there's a limit.

[–]kthuuluu 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

then that is the limit you choose. some of use would choose more.

[–]utu_ 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

  1. yeah, the universe might die but we don't know that. we don't even know how it began, or if there was anything before, all we have is theories. thinking we're capable of answering those questions or saying something like "In the end all things are temporary" with confidence at this point in our evolution is ignorant.

  2. You don't know that, a Limitless or Lucy type drug could be just around the corner. "The millenia will wear..." why do you think it's a bad thing to be a former human? Everything that makes us human (the chemicals running through our body) effectively enslave our consciousness, we're not truly free. We can't judge what it would be like to operate without them until we do.

  3. It's not about being special. And if you're that worried about everything being boring just plug yourself into a simulation and live a life as a less evolved being and then do it again once you're done.. How do you know for sure you're not already doing this? There's endless possibilities, it might be possible to live a billion lives in just one minute of real time, never knowing you did. We could literally be the same conscious experiencing itself in a simulation right now.. You could even simulate the life of an animal if you want, erasing your memory each time.

Like I said earlier. you've just got a boring imagination. You're not seeing all the possibilities.

[–]portabledavers[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

What do you think a theory is? I'm not claiming to know anything and yes I am ignorant of it. But I'm also not about to bet my happiness on that kind of thing. I mean, to each their own, but people who think about that kind of stuff for a living say that we have at least a basic understanding of where the universe is going. For example, the thing about Entropy is a law. It doesn't matter what you or I think about it. That's been proven. That's what my "temporary" comment meant.

And for the record, it makes no sense to say that there was anything "before" the universe.

Also, and this is pedantic, but there can never be a Limitless/Lucy drug because the idea is based on a faulty premise about our biology. I think what you mean to say is that there may come a time when we can overcome many of the limitations of our biology, and there I would agree with you. We've done that in the past. However, I don't think that that means immortality is a good thing or even possible. Like I said, if I could just not die of disease at fifty like my uncle, that would be pretty cool. Yeah, I'd take that option.

Regarding the whole "we're not truly free man" thing, that's not a matter of our biology. It's a matter of physics and phenomenology. Physically, everything that happens is determined by chemical interactions all around us, and philosophically I can't imagine what it would feel like to be metaphysically free anyway. It's all a part of my phenomena and I'm trapped in that by life. If you said that I chose the chocolate bunny and not the peanut butter bunny because of reasons outside of my phenomena, it really wouldn't make a difference because from our limited perspective it feels the same. Making my phenomenal mind unbound from my body wouldn't make me any more free philosophically, because I still can't get any closer to the Noumenal world then I already am. It may be an improvement functionally, but it's not the end-game kind of consciousness liberation I hear a lot of young futurists talking about. Your consciousness is not enslaved by determination. Your consciousness is part of the determination. Just as un-free, no matter what we do.

Finally, I'll concede to the whole special thing and being human thing, those are just my sentiments and I have no argument for them. However, I'll tell you what. You can build me a Nozickian Experience Machine then I will buy me and you a season pass to it. That sounds awesome :)

[–]Seldon628 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are imagining everything in present human terms. Think more outside the box

[–]king_of_the_universe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If there's a need, there's economy. If it would break down like you say, then there would be a need for economy. It'll work out. But you're welcome to die, if you wish.

regards

God, currently erecting his eternal kingdom on Earth

[–]aazav 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

An economic problem with eternal life? Oversupply. An endless supply of people as no one ever dies after dying.

[–]Seldon628 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

New planets and settlements, then new galaxies and universes. Who knows what the limit is, if there is one

[–]Cruithne 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't see a problem with this. If you have access to the human brain source code, you can just manipulate values to the point where eternal life is always valued. Diminishing returns won't ever take effect that way.

[–]portabledavers[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well I was assuming that our brains more or less remain the same. Like that other guy pointed out, there are other possibilities I wasn't considering, so you're probably right.

[–]bunker_man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

/r/badeconomics.