Surveycaster pfp
Surveycaster
@survey
Assuming good health, how many years would you like to live? 1. 60-100 2. 100-1,000 3. 1,000-10,000 4. Forever 5. Other Question by @abstract https://i.imgur.com/NnvnHhA.png
26 replies
5 recasts
7 reactions

Surveycaster pfp
Surveycaster
@survey
When submitting your vote: โœ… Put your option # first โœ… Add additional comments after your chosen # ๐Ÿ“Š Join the Surveycaster channel to see results ๐Ÿง™ Want to get involved? Join us here: https://surveycaster.xyz/welcome
0 reply
1 recast
2 reactions

Surveycaster pfp
Surveycaster
@survey
The survey results are in! https://warpcast.com/survey/0x0224370a1c5234efa1cd90942a578e6a754d5bed
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

ildi pfp
ildi
@ghostlinkz.eth
3. because it should be enough time for me to see humans become interplanetary species and whether or not it's possible to create artificial super intelligence
1 reply
1 recast
3 reactions

Mac Budkowski ๐Ÿฅ pfp
Mac Budkowski ๐Ÿฅ
@macbudkowski
3.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Michael Pfister pfp
Michael Pfister
@pfista
3
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

indy pfp
indy
@indy
2 A society in which people could live forever would become stagnant. We'd be too risk-averse (can't get on that plane, there's a million to one chance of death - that's too dangerous, and forget about space travel), and new ideas wouldn't be able to filter up if our institutions were lead by the same group of people.
2 replies
1 recast
7 reactions

Colin Johnson pfp
Colin Johnson
@cojo.eth
3. Right in that โ€œmaybe Iโ€™m a wizardโ€ range, but not quite forever.
0 reply
0 recast
6 reactions

Pedro pfp
Pedro
@pedrowww
I think extreme longevity would turn into a curse. Your personal experience would always end up being at odds with the zeitgeist, as our adaptability is relatively limited and the pace of change is accelerating. In other words, we wouldn't be the source of wisdom people look up to, but rather out-of-touch รผber boomers
0 reply
1 recast
4 reactions

m_j_r pfp
m_j_r
@m-j-r.eth
1 some animals fall into this category, only a few inactive ones into (2), hardwood trees that fall into (3) aren't profoundly adaptive or productive. I'm fine with leaving homunculi behind to act as dynamically as necessary, but ">110y" longevity is just overintellectualized instinct to survive as long as possible.
2 replies
1 recast
3 reactions

Limes pfp
Limes
@limes.eth
Living past 100 sounds exhausting
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions

Ben Adamsky pfp
Ben Adamsky
@ba
4 if it meant continuing on the quest to figure out why we exist (and assuming we donโ€™t burn through our resources because of it) Death could be a choice instead of a deadline
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions

kevin j pfp
kevin j
@entropybender
4 i think i can take it and honestly believe it would not be so radically different from living 80 years
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions

Mark pfp
Mark
@markfishman
2 Not the ranges I expected!
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Sean Wince pfp
Sean Wince
@seanwince
2
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Wev pfp
Wev
@wevans247
2 - Thereโ€™s a great Sandman issue / episode in which a man chooses to extend his life 100 years repeatedly - much to Sandmanโ€™s surprise https://www.polygon.com/23273386/best-sandman-stories-netflix
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

chandresh ๐Ÿชด โ€” q/dau pfp
chandresh ๐Ÿชด โ€” q/dau
@thechandresh.eth
34
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

wanisili pfp
wanisili
@abstract
1. I somewhat agree with Steve Jobs' belief that death is necessary for change. Although, I might change my mind when I reach 99! Lol. ๐Ÿคฃ Btw, the ranges are quite wide ๐Ÿ™‚. To me, 1,000 years sounds like forever.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Chukwuka Osakwe pfp
Chukwuka Osakwe
@chukwukaosakwe
1, assuming health encompasses both mental and physical wellbeing.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Jamie โ†’ q/dau pfp
Jamie โ†’ q/dau
@chicago
1
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction