a commentor on my previous post says:
the same over-enthusiastic claptrap that will have us careening up a technological spike toward singularity on the wings of AI angels (or devils, depending on your viewpoint)
i’m not at all unsympathetic to that point of view. however, looking at the evidence, i’m not sure that it’s right. i’m the first person to stand up and decry anybody saying that there’s anything different now than there was then. i’ve been a big fan of millenarialism, since i first learnt what it was. back on the cusp of the 17/18th century the world was all going to change, same 18/19th etc. reading the original sources you realise that actually not a lot has really changed, people for sure haven’t. but significant change there has been. in 1800 life expectancy was 37 years. now its 78. that’s pretty big. it’s possible that the sub-optimal structure of the body can be augmented with current/soon-to-be technology, such that another doubling could take place in the next x years. but in the next x years other technologies become available. whether aubrey de grey has his timing correct, i don’t know, but in principle i think he’s spot on.
