Surveycaster on Warpcast

Surveycaster pfp

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

When submitting your vote: ✅ Put your option # first ✅ Add additional comments after your chosen # 📊 Join the Surveycaster channel to see results 🧙 Want to get involved? Join us here: https://surveycaster.xyz/welcome

0 reply

1 recast

2 reactions

Surveycaster pfp

The survey results are in! https://warpcast.com/survey/0x0224370a1c5234efa1cd90942a578e6a754d5bed

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

ildi pfp

@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 🥝 pfp

Mac Budkowski 🥝

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Michael Pfister pfp

Michael Pfister

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

indy pfp

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

3. Right in that “maybe I’m a wizard” range, but not quite forever.

0 reply

0 recast

6 reactions

Pedro pfp

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 über boomers

0 reply

1 recast

4 reactions

m_j_r pfp

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

Living past 100 sounds exhausting

1 reply

1 recast

2 reactions

Ben Adamsky pfp

4 if it meant continuing on the quest to figure out why we exist (and assuming we don’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

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

2 Not the ranges I expected!

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Sean Wince pfp

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Wev pfp

2 - There’s a great Sandman issue / episode in which a man chooses to extend his life 100 years repeatedly - much to Sandman’s surprise https://www.polygon.com/23273386/best-sandman-stories-netflix

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

chandresh 🪴 — q/dau pfp

chandresh 🪴 — q/dau

@thechandresh.eth

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

wanisili pfp

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. 🤣 Btw, the ranges are quite wide 🙂. 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 → q/dau pfp

Jamie → q/dau

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction