Yes, there are people who believe we will find a way to transcend death via technology. I personally think a world ruled by immortal omniwealthy methusalas that will never let even death release their boot from the necks of the common man is a bad thing, but…
Comment on Choose wisely!
capuccino@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Really? Are people out there that death is a design flaw? I know it’s shitpost, but it’s based on something after all
Godric@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
capuccino@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Once I read a creepypasta where the wealthy spent a lot of money paying research and development of immortality, only achieving a worse version of cancer. The wealthy obviously went dead.
Godric@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
That’s the good ending. Bad ending is it works and the dictators of the world crush everyone else, tantalizing just enough people with the immortality carrot to make the system eternal.
binarytobis@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
I’m also hung up on “Crypto is UBI”. Surely this is a one off crackpot quote and not a thing, right?
marcos@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
This one is empirically falsified. I never heard it before, and even though I can believe somebody is saying it somewhere, it’s an incredibly stupid thing to say.
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
Oh almost forgot
More than three years ago we founded Worldcoin with the ambition of creating a new identity and financial network owned by everyone; the rollout begins today. If successful, we believe Worldcoin could drastically increase economic opportunity, scale a reliable solution for distinguishing humans from AI online while preserving privacy, enable global democratic processes, and eventually show a potential path to AI-funded UBI.
It’s the iris scan one
marcos@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Oh, so a con-man, not a stupid man.
blarghly@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
I believe this is an idea most legitimately championed by Nick Bostrom. Here is a video explaining his perspective.
I feel like, at least from the stance of abstract philosophy, he makes some good points. And I’m not enough of a philosopher to refute them (though I’m sure some have). Personally, my stance is “I’ll cross that bridge when I arrive at it” - I expect to die before that happens.
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 16 hours ago
Depends on how literally you mean it, in general, those most likely to say it wont think that humans are literally designed not to die and only do so because someone made a mistake, but more that humans might be redesigned or modified not to (or at least not from biological aging). Not a hard to find sentiment if you hang out in spaces with transhumanists, but I find the ones that overlap with AI bros, that tend to have an attitude like “this will totally happen in my lifetime and with no effort because the AI singularity is going to come and give us everything in a few years” impossible to talk to, because all too often they will cite even the tiniest listed improvement in any AI system as proof that literally everything possible or impossible is about to happen and then insist you arent paying attention when you give them skeptcism.