According to this article, I think I rank as an optimist - I tend to trust people, feel that we can solve the problems before us, etc.
But I'm listening to a book right now called The Ascent of Humanity, and it makes some interesting points about the philosophical axioms of the arguments presented in this article. Namely, the argument is that the technological approach - inventing our way out of problems - is doomed to failure over the long term because it creates an accelerating treadmill of required progress in order to solve the problems it creates. This is reflected in economics by the requirement that our output will continue to increase (otherwise debt doesn't work).
I now look at articles like this a bit more skeptically because they assume that technological progress is necessarily good. For example, what argument could be made that painted longevity into one's 90s as a bad thing? Well, we spend an enormous amount of human effort keeping people alive for the last few months of life. At what point is it not worth it to keep people alive any more? Perhaps culturally, we need to become better at coping with and accepting death.
I haven't made up my mind on this, because the case against technology leads to some pretty bizarre conclusions. But I find it worthwhile to consider.
To be fair a lot of those expenses in the last few months of life are hail-mary attempts at recovery, and in a minority of cases they work. Those options simply weren't available in the past.
The notion that tech creates more and increasing problems is not necessarily true either. Viable Solar and Wind power wasn't a thing until recently, and it creates far fewer problems relative to Coal and Oil. Increasing efficiency is part of technological progress.
Ultimately the case against technology leads to humanity stagnating in some state on this planet until we run out of resources or the sun finally explodes. I'd like to think we can do better over the long term.
Absolutely agree. The only way it's worth it to increase lifespan is to increase healthspan at the same time. Currently, most medicine seems to focus on the former.
But I'm listening to a book right now called The Ascent of Humanity, and it makes some interesting points about the philosophical axioms of the arguments presented in this article. Namely, the argument is that the technological approach - inventing our way out of problems - is doomed to failure over the long term because it creates an accelerating treadmill of required progress in order to solve the problems it creates. This is reflected in economics by the requirement that our output will continue to increase (otherwise debt doesn't work).
I now look at articles like this a bit more skeptically because they assume that technological progress is necessarily good. For example, what argument could be made that painted longevity into one's 90s as a bad thing? Well, we spend an enormous amount of human effort keeping people alive for the last few months of life. At what point is it not worth it to keep people alive any more? Perhaps culturally, we need to become better at coping with and accepting death.
I haven't made up my mind on this, because the case against technology leads to some pretty bizarre conclusions. But I find it worthwhile to consider.