thought: Doesn't wanting to live forever violate the notion that we should be concerned with what theories and values triumph rather than who triumphs? I mean, we think our values and theories are the right ones, fine, but we also know they aren't perfect, and will have to be changed in the future. And who's to say we'll be the best ones to adapt to the values of the future? Even today all of us find entrenched theories we aren't sure how to fix. And the more time passes, the more the world will change, and the more we will find that not just the denotation of our worldview needs changing, but even the constraints and meta-knowledge in it must also be changed. As a striking example of the difficulty of doing that, just look at how much control we have over our emotions.
counter: As the world improves this much, well why the fuck can't we stick around? It's not like there isn't gonna be plenty of housing, food, stuff. Even if we were basically totally useless, we could subsist on negligible charity (in reality, creative people, even with hangups, aren't useless). And also, the above is kinda revolutionary. As if we should just get rid of imperfect worldviews and replace them with more-perfect new ones. (even replace here implies we have to make room for the new ones, ie limited space, which isn't right). but it isn't going to be like that, with an old generation of useless people and a new generation of useful people. the distinctions will be much more blurred. ok, now i concede there will be people who feel they can't keep up, and want to die. fine. but the people who do have the conviction that they want to live forever ... well in wanting to live forever they aren't giving up, rather they press on and try every day. and that itself is enough.
> As a striking example of the difficulty of doing that, just look at how much control we have over our emotions.
why not take a look at how much we improve (over time) how much control we have over our emotions?
> Doesn't wanting to live forever violate the notion that we should be concerned with what theories and values triumph rather than who triumphs?
What does wanting to live forever have to do with triumph? Your question has a series of assumptions without explanation.
No ideas triumph anyway. They are erased and replaced by better ideas.
A future world will not be like the world of today where progress is linear and people are forced to "keep up". People will be able to live in virtual realities of their choosing. It will be easier and easier to save records of the past and recreate the past so people can live in their own world as much as they wish.
In the future nobody will be judged for how useful they are and nobody will resents anyone of feel they are burdened by anyone and people will live doing what they enjoy.
In today's world there is an abundance of food and entertainment but little freedom and joy, given people are forced to work for their sustenance.
> What does wanting to live forever have to do with triumph? Your question has a series of assumptions without explanation.
i think maybe you missed the word "who".
the point is wanting to live forever is about **who** (*which people*) is in the future, rather than **which ideas**.
i do not understand how you put the problem.
wanting to live forever is wanting to continue to experience life.
it has nothing to do with preserving the best ideas.
and asking who should be in the future is the same as asking which ideas.
it makes no sense to care for the future if you are not in it even if it's a future full of awesome ideas.
none of the ideas today will be in the future.