17 replies to this topic

[brokenportal]

Quantity of life is a prerequisite to quality of life. Quantity comes first. If life becomes so devoid of quality that you want to opt out of life, then that's your choice, but we didn't arrive in this emerging utopia of longer life, health, comfort, ability, insight, knowledge, skill, expansion and all of the rest because getting here was such a fulfilling joyous thing.
 images (100).jpg   20.25KB   1 downloads  family.jpg   39.7KB   4 downloads  McConnellBoerTrekLL.jpg   41.38KB   5 downloads
We didn't survive potato famines, ice ages, ages of suppression, hunger, times where people lived their entire lives never setting foot outside their counties, and ages where the town book was its most prized form of entertainment to give up because we don't have a fast enough internet connection and ergonomic enough space shuttles.

We have what we have because we braved the storms to make life work. We have set course for the edges of existence, and come hell or high water we will get there.

Edited by brokenportal, 24 March 2012 - 01:25 AM.

[Chester Burton Brown]

It is a provocative proposition, but I'm not sure I understand the substance of your argument. Perhaps it is too high level for me to parse.

To my mind, the opposite is obvious and demonstrable. Is it not clear that given equal spans of time -- let's say a decade -- the decade with the higher quality of life is more valuable? If we accept that (all things being equal, quality is a desired quality), we can move on to adjusting the ratios and asking ourselves where the threshold for reversal lies.

For example, is a decade of low-quality life comparable to a half decade of high-quality life? Certainly a life one second long is not desirable, regardless of the level of quality. In between those two is a fulcrum which might be personal rather than general.

Regardless I would have difficulty accepting the proposition that a century of suffering was equivalent in value to a half-century of wonder.

Is your argument perhaps more poetic than functional? Or have I simply missed the point entirely?

Yours,
CBB

[brokenportal]

I used to wonder that too Chester. What I have found is that what you are saying would be the case, it seems, if we were presented with the choice for either quality or quantity up front.

It seems that what happens though is people have the choice to press on with quantity and then work for and/or hope to come upon quality. They don't forgo the quantity because coming upon quality or not is uncertain. There is a common theme among humanity of delayed gratification, even if the gratification never comes. Our ancestors lived through famines, cold, suppression, predators, and things like that. They would survive on things like unsalted turnips for years at a time. It was common for people to have to bury many of their children. They would toil on farms, in coal mines, on the seas, hoping to build and secure various incremental advancements or discover great things. If they hadn't put up with all of that quantity, that was often so sparse in quality, then would we be here today?

You need the quantity, it seems, to open up the time for you to earn and/or come upon the opportunities to have the quality.

[Chester Burton Brown]

Ah, Brokenportal, now perhaps I have a better idea of the angle from which you're attacking this.

It is definitely true in the sense you describe that quality is indeed predicated on quantity, because with a life quantity of zero no quality is possible, whereas with a life quality of zero no quantity is excluded. Similarly it is a reasonable maxim that we must do what we must before we can do what we wish (or, as Kurt Vonnegut so memorably put it: "We do (doodly do) what we must (muddily must) muddily do (doodly do) until we bust (bodily bust)."

However, we are also obliged to include in our reckoning the fact that the absolute value of life is affected by its duration. If you've ever read Carl Sagan you may recall an explanation about relative risks and long life spans (I cannot remember in which book or series), in which he shows that risk assessment changes dramatically when life spans stretch. For example, if the odds of getting killed at a road crossing are 1 fatality out of 100,000,000 crossings, a person who might cross that road a few hundred times over the course of their life will be experiencing those odds differently from someone who might cross that road a trillion times over the course of their lives. One is taking a small chance of losing a small percentage of their expected life, the other is taking a large chance of a substantial percentage of their expected life. So, in a way, the longer you live the more you live in terror of trivial outcomes.

I describe this to illustrate the point that the relationship of quality to quantity with respect to different life durations is not a linear one. How might be deal with nasty secondary interactions like the ballooning of risk when dealing with extremely long durations of life? -- reworking the actuarial tables is the easy part...recalibrating our instincts is a much tougher chore.

[Marios Kyriazis]

However, we are also obliged to include in our reckoning the fact that the absolute value of life is affected by its duration. If you've ever read Carl Sagan you may recall an explanation about relative risks and long life spans (I cannot remember in which book or series), in which he shows that risk assessment changes dramatically when life spans stretch. For example, if the odds of getting killed at a road crossing are 1 fatality out of 100,000,000 crossings, a person who might cross that road a few hundred times over the course of their life will be experiencing those odds differently from someone who might cross that road a trillion times over the course of their lives. One is taking a small chance of losing a small percentage of their expected life, the other is taking a large chance of a substantial percentage of their expected life. So, in a way, the longer you live the more you live in terror of trivial outcomes.

I describe this to illustrate the point that the relationship of quality to quantity with respect to different life durations is not a linear one. How might be deal with nasty secondary interactions like the ballooning of risk when dealing with extremely long durations of life? -- reworking the actuarial tables is the easy part...recalibrating our instincts is a much tougher chore.

Equally, a long lifespan is also likely to encompass statistically more positive things. If you enjoy something rare (to mirror your statistics, something that you could only experience once in 100 million), your chances of experinece this again would be considerable enhanced if you live 500 times longer than the current lifespan.

[Hologram]

What if, knowledge that your time is limited is what you needed to be happy in the first place. And having more of it, simply caused you to place farther and farther away from your life. That runs counterintuitive to everything I've come to believe, perhaps in an instinctual sense the desire to live, to prosper which is embedded into all of our genes is what you speak of but I am a firm believer in quality over quantity, as in this instance, I would rather go out with a bang than fizzle into nothingness.

[brokenportal]

Chester - Living with risk of death is a part of life. We already get along just fine with it. Because of risk, we don't choose to opt out of life as soon as we can do we? Then furthermore, scaling back those risks is what the goal of indefinite life extension is about. It isnt only about defeating diseases and aging. Like mrszeta says, there will also be increasing chances for opportunities. We accept the risk for the shot at knowing more and more of the big picture of existence.

Cerberus - If you were offered one billion dollars to spend in a months time, but the agreement was that you were to be shot in the head afterwards, or, you could have indefinite life extension, with no guarantees of quality in the future, then I very much doubt that you would take the billion dollars. I do agree with you though that given the choice of a billion dollars for a month, or say, being on death row for 75 years, the billion dollars seems the likely choice, but that's not what we are talking about here.

You secure the quantity first, then you go after the quality.

[Hologram]

If you're making the argument that, time is worth more than money then that's a given. The thing is though, not all time is equal and it depreciates in value(like most things) the more you have. I think I understand this from a logistics standpoint, in those terms quantity does indeed come before quality. To challenge mrszeta's point, it seems a sad truth that the amount of unfortunate matters would disproportionately outweigh whatever happy ones could be encountered. So far happiness is meant to exist in moments, disappearing soon after they are in your grasp. Your priority however seems to be on life extension itself, life extension. At least in this scenario, the second part of the word rather than the first. This to me would seem a slight to life itself, I don't see how you can truly enjoy something, if your main focus is hoarding it.

This is something where, I can't be so rigid as to place myself in a single position. Because who knows what the future will bring and life extension is really the best bet of letting us experience it, there are problems that undoubtedly will arise but perhaps, perhaps with all the time that could be gained, we would have enough time to puzzle them out.

[Ben]

Utility gained from life = amount of life x quality of life (amount of utility each instance of existence gives)

[brokenportal]

I was writing about this recently in a more concise line that I want to post here in case I need it again, "Quantity of life comes before quality and to say otherwise is disrespectful to your ancestors who slaved away and delivered their bloodline here through you, through times that were often overfull with hardship."

If you're making the argument that, time is worth more than money then that's a given. The thing is though, not all time is equal and it depreciates in value(like most things) the more you have. I think I understand this from a logistics standpoint, in those terms quantity does indeed come before quality. To challenge mrszeta's point, it seems a sad truth that the amount of unfortunate matters would disproportionately outweigh whatever happy ones could be encountered. So far happiness is meant to exist in moments, disappearing soon after they are in your grasp. Your priority however seems to be on life extension itself, life extension. At least in this scenario, the second part of the word rather than the first. This to me would seem a slight to life itself, I don't see how you can truly enjoy something, if your main focus is hoarding it.

This is something where, I can't be so rigid as to place myself in a single position. Because who knows what the future will bring and life extension is really the best bet of letting us experience it, there are problems that undoubtedly will arise but perhaps, perhaps with all the time that could be gained, we would have enough time to puzzle them out.

I'm not sure that I get your argument here, I'm not sure that you do either actually. It seems you're deconstructing a devils advocate side of the argument. If you have indefinite life extension, then you control your fate. If you end up with 100 crappy years, that's on you. Even if you do, that doesn't preclude having 100 mind blowing years after that. With indefinite life extension, the amount of enjoyment or lack thereof you get out of life after that will be the same as it is now, it will be up to you. Your success or failure will be all on you. We know of plenty of things to do, and the notion that we would be utterly and helplessly unmotivated to do things we want to do is a baseless assertion at best. What would be the difference between asserting that and asserting that, "we wouldn't want to live into the future because surely there would be too many ants and bees for it to be enjoyable." Being alive itself isn't going to make your life bad. Lets remember that dead people don't have any fun at all. Life is the principle we stand on here. Its almost as though the notion of the importance of life and survival were a revolutionary concept, unthought of by billions of death loving ancestors up until now.

You know that people don't want more years for the sake of it. A person doesn't choose not to step out in front of a bus for the sake of it. We do it for the potential to harness more quality. This is obvious obvious stuff here.

All of civilization could be destroyed, a major ice age could set in, predatory beasts could repopulate the earth, the diseases we can prevent now could all run rampant again and life would still be worth living. If it wasn't then we wouldn't be here. Adaptable life loving people survive when they can.

[nowayout]

I don't agree with the title. Every one of us could still die tomorrow, no matter what precautions we take, but nobody can take away from us the dancing we already did.

I think a lot of the individuals who squander their youth starving themselves and obsessing about supplements and drugs with the goal of longer life, are going to have a rude awakening someday when they realize with regret that they have missed out on the fun and that it is too late to recapture it.

[castrensis]

This is like saying the quantity of money accumulated outweighs what you buy with the money. This is partially true. Access to money is the necessary prerequisite to spending money, not the quantity of monies. Quantity of monies has no direct relation to the enjoyment derived from what is purchased with said monies, save that you can spend it on more things.

If life becomes so devoid of quality that you want to opt out of life, then that's your choice, but we didn't arrive in this emerging utopia...

I agree that pressing on in the face of hardship & adversity is a necessary trait of an adaptable species, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today. However, there should be a differentiation made between someone making a conscious choice to allow a natural death & self-murder. Until we find the magic potion(s) to grant unlimited lifespans & cure every disease, death is unavoidable; & if I had to live in a bed in intractable pain having lost control of my excretions & my options were to buy myself a little more time in my current state or allow the disease process to progress to its certain outcome I would probably choose the latter.

[pulsar]

I think I get what your saying, if it comes to it i'd gladly suffer a few years as an old man in exchange for infinite longevity :D

[brokenportal]

It’s quantity first, and then quality, not quantity regardless of quality.

You can’t dance when you’re dead. Those that don’t work on this cause are going to have the rudest awakening of them all when they wake up and realize that they spent their whole life dancing and very little or none of it working on this cause. If a person has to bear out pain and suffering, they should bear it out for as long as they can tolerate it and do what they can to bring quality back in. If they can’t or it becomes too unbearable then they can opt out. And it’s as if to say that supplements supporters don’t also do a lot of fun things. There is a tradition in this world of delayed gratification. It’s not a revolutionary concept. Then also, it’s as if people think that working on this cause itself can’t be fun and fulfilling. From what I can see it’s one of the most fun and fulfilling things there is. It’s the people that don’t help with this cause yet are squandering, and not just some dancing, but the entire future of existence and all the opportunities it presents.

Castrensis, I generally agree, and that is a part of what I’m saying. Again, it’s quantity first, and then quality, not quantity regardless of quality.

[castrensis]

It’s quantity first, and then quality, not quantity regardless of quality.

You can’t dance when you’re dead. Those that don’t work on this cause are going to have the rudest awakening of them all when they wake up and realize that they spent their whole life dancing and very little or none of it working on this cause. If a person has to bear out pain and suffering, they should bear it out for as long as they can tolerate it and do what they can to bring quality back in. If they can’t or it becomes too unbearable then they can opt out. And it’s as if to say that supplements supporters don’t also do a lot of fun things. There is a tradition in this world of delayed gratification. It’s not a revolutionary concept. Then also, it’s as if people think that working on this cause itself can’t be fun and fulfilling. From what I can see it’s one of the most fun and fulfilling things there is. It’s the people that don’t help with this cause yet are squandering, and not just some dancing, but the entire future of existence and all the opportunities it presents.

Castrensis, I generally agree, and that is a part of what I’m saying. Again, it’s quantity first, and then quality, not quantity regardless of quality.

You say, "It's quantity first, then quality." I would rephrase this as, "Quantity of a given thing is a necessary prerequisite for a given thing to possess quality & quality of a given thing is proportional to & dependent upon the quantity of a given thing." This is demonstrably untrue. Quality exists independently of quantity, in that a thing can demonstrate a high level of quality while being the only one of its kind. Say a furniture factory churns out a thousand rocking chairs a day - does a high number of rocking chairs necessarily mean they are of high quality? No. In fact, the opposite is true. An amish furniture maker may only make one rocking chair every couple of days but it rates qualitatively higher than the mass-produced rocking chair. I would go so far as to say that quantity & quality are neither interdependent nor equivalent, exist independently of each other, usually have an inversely proportional relationship, but are not mutually exclusive in that there are incidental conjunctions.

What would be accurate to say is that the existence of a given thing is a necessary prerequisite for a given thing to possess quality & quantity.

I agree with what you're saying, RE: doing something perhaps unpleasant or arduous now so that you may reap a benefit that is temporally disconnected from the action. We naturally seek pleasure & avoid pain, a bestial habit. I might dispense with all this talk about quantity vs quality & bolster the argument with something Frank Herbert wrote & attributed to the fictional Bene Gesserit:

"Seek freedom & become captive of your desires. Seek discipline & find your liberty."

Edited by castrensis, 02 July 2012 - 03:39 AM.

[castrensis]

What would be accurate to say is that the existence of a given thing is a necessary prerequisite for a given thing to possess quality & quantity

Was giving this more thought & it occurred to me that this could be restated as existence = quantity>=1. In this way quantity is directly related to quality in that quantity must be >=1 in order for any given thing to be attributed quality, but beyond that there is no requirement that quantity is related to quality. So, reluctantly, I revise my original statement.

[brokenportal]

People in pain and suffering spend a lot of time working to bear it out. They don't, as a rule, say if life starts to suck then I'm checking out as soon as possible. Your examples are for different scenarios. Sometimes you have to take what comes your way, and if it sucks then you battle through it for as long as you can in hope of a better tomorrow. If we didn't do that, if quality first was our M.O. then it seems we would have gone extinct a long time ago. That's why we keep the quantity even when there is no quality, and then we go in search of quality. For example, if a person is in a hospital in severe pain and they have enough morphine to last until more arrives a month later, they don't take all the morphine in two days because they think that quality comes before quantity. A Somalian doesn't get 6 months worth of beans and rice and eat it all in a few weeks because the quality is better than the quantity. They work on preserving the quantity and they use that time to move to the next step, getting the quality.

[castrensis]

I agree! I still don't think we're arguing this point effectively.

The goal is to reach escape velocity. In order to do so we have to count our calories, take our supps & exercise like it's our job. These things are not necessarily pleasant but they improve the function of the organism so they're necessary in order to maintain your organic support system until science gives us a means to reverse senescence &/or replace our in/organic bits with something superior.

Considered this way, the goal is to live as long as possible, regardless of the state, in the hopes that science will fix the problem of consciousness stuck in an organism programmed for failure. We can say that for those attempting to reach escape velocity, quantity outweighs quality in every aspect until such time as there are no longer any limits on quantity, at which time we can focus on quality. Until that time the longest life span possible should be our one star in sight. It's much like someone tending carefully to their money in order to afford a vacation next year.

How did I end up arguing against myself?