思考与写作nickbostrom.com编辑精选
龙暴君的寓言（2005）
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant (2005)
2009 — 2021，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这是哲学家 Nick Bostrom 于 2005 年写的一则寓言：一条每天吞噬数千人的巨龙（隐喻死亡与衰老）长期被人类当作不可抗拒的自然规律接受，直到有人提出并最终用导弹将其杀死，借此论证人类有道德理由认真投入攻克衰老。寓言刻意简化，把反对者塑造成卢德分子、吝啬鬼和宗教愚人的漫画形象，意在激起关于是否应终结衰老的讨论。
为什么经久不衰：它用极简寓言把“死亡是否不可避免、是否值得对抗”这一根本问题摆上台面，多年来反复引发支持与反对的激烈辩论，至今仍是讨论长寿研究伦理的经典入口。
HN 评论精选
批评寓言回避了无自然死亡社会的现实问题，如人口空间、生育受限和老年统治。
一个没有自然死亡的世界对孩子的态度会非常不同。一个住满 300 岁不死之人的星球根本没有空间容纳多少新生命。大多数人将无法组建家庭，少数获得机会的人可能还要被政府仔细审查。龙的故事很感人，但它没有回答“后龙时代”那种不可避免的老年统治会是什么样子。身体不衰竭，并不意味着大脑不会衰退。掌权的老人会保持对新思想和挑战的开放吗？我们真的想让不死的贝索斯和扎克伯格永远扩张他们的帝国吗？
pavlov查看英文原文
A world without natural death would have a very different attitude towards children. There simply wouldn't be room for very many new people on a planet populated by immortal 300-year-olds. Most people wouldn't be able to start a family. The few who get the opportunity would probably be carefully vetted by governments. The dragon fable is emotional, but it doesn't address any of the questions of what a "post-dragon" world of inevitable gerontocracy would look like. If bodies don't fail, that doesn't automatically mean brains wouldn't decay. Will the old people in power remain open to new ideas and challenges? Do we really want immortal Bezos and Zuckerberg expanding their empires in perpetuity?
寓言过度简化，把死亡当成可被单一技术消灭的东西，并丑化了反对者。
我完全厌恶这个寓言，也恼火 Bostrom，因为每次它被提起我都要浪费时间去为自己的立场辩护。这个故事对 Bostrom 想表达的论点来说太简单化了，即便作为寓言也是如此。它把死亡当作单一的东西，最终被一颗字面意义上的魔法子弹消灭。我不认为曼哈顿计划式的努力能这样根除死亡，也不认为这个立场不合理。我们在改善整体健康、降低死亡率、治疗和根除可怕疾病上已取得惊人进展，已经能比祖先多活 2-3 倍。我绝不是声称这就够了、事情本该如此的卢德分子，但前沿健康研究的投入回报正在迅速递减，这一点不容忽视。也许会有生物学复兴，也许不会，但即便复兴也不太可能带你到无限。Bostrom 显然预料到会有反对，花了不少篇幅“辩护”并回击“批评者”，但他并不理解批评者及其批评——故事里他们被塑造成卢德分子、吝啬鬼和无知宗教愚人的漫画形象。
ohazi查看英文原文
I absolutely despise this fable, and I'm annoyed at Bostrom for all the time I've wasted trying to defend my position whenever it comes up. The story is too simplistic for the point Bostrom is trying to make, even as a fable. It treats the concept of death as a singular thing that ends up being defeated by a literal magic bullet. I don't think a Manhattan Project style effort will ever be capable of eradicating death like this, and I don't think this is an unreasonable position to hold. We've already made incredible progress in improving overall health, reducing mortality, and treating and eradicating really horrible diseases. We already get to live 2-3 times as long as our ancestors. I'm definitely not a Luddite trying to claim that this is enough progress, or that this is how it's meant to be, but you'd have to be willfully ignorant to miss the obvious fact that we're now at a point where the return on effort for cutting edge health research is rapidly diminishing. Perhaps we'll have a bio-renaissance, perhaps not, but even a renaissance isn't likely going to take you to infinity. Bostrom obviously expects pushback, as he spends a considerable fraction of the fable "defending" his effort from "critics." But he doesn't understand his critics or their criticism. In the story they take the form of caricatures of luddites, penny-pinchers, and ignorant religious fools. I absolutely support continuing research in health and longevity, but we should be realistic about the effort required, the real possibility that seemingly promising efforts will fail, and what we hope to achieve. Eradicating cancer is a fantastic goal, but it's really fucking hard, might not work in the general case, and isn't likely to increase best-case longevity by a huge amount. After cancer no longer kills you, something else will. Also, it would be nice to not be accused of being some sort of monsterous death-worshiper whenever I express this view.
概括了寓言内容，并质疑这个类比是否有说服力。
简而言之，这篇 4878 字的寓言中，那条每天杀死成千上万人的龙代表死亡，人们说对此无能为力，最后它被一枚导弹杀死。Bostrom 随后论证“我们有充分的道德理由消除人类衰老”。这大概还行吧，但我不确定这个类比有多好。大家似乎都赞成更好的健康，而我是少数喜欢通过上传实现半永生这一想法的人，但我不确定龙的故事在这里有多大帮助。
tim333查看英文原文
Tl;dr, the 4878 word parable is the dragon that kills thousands each day represents death and people say nothing can be done about it gets killed in the end by a missile. Bostrom then argues "we have compelling moral reasons to get rid of human senescence." Which is kinda ok I guess though I'm not sure the analogy is very good. Everyone seems in favour of better health and I'm in a minority who like the idea of semi immortality through uploading but I'm not sure the dragon story is very helpful here.
认为大众对长寿研究的抵触没那么大，真正难题是证明大幅延寿在技术上可行。
学术界有一种普遍看法，认为他们面临来自那些相信“死亡赋予生命意义”、认为终结衰老会损害“人类尊严”的人的强烈抵制。这些情绪在哲学家和伦理学家中可能很强烈，争论可能在期刊上激烈进行，但我认为普通大众中的抵制远没有那么多。真正的挑战在于证明大幅延长寿命确实可能——现代医学大部分其实是在治疗症状，而非治愈，我们对大多数病症的 underlying causes 既不了解也没有有效疗法。
GavinB查看英文原文
There's a common perception in the academic community that they face heavy resistance from those who think that "death gives life meaning," and that ending aging would harm "human dignity." These feelings may be strong among philosophers and ethicists and the debate may rage in journals, but I don't think there's nearly so much resistance in the general population. The challenge is proving that dramatic longevity extension is really possible. Most of modern medicine is really treatment of symptoms, not cures. We don't understand or have effective treatments for the underlying causes of most conditions.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
保持你的身份认同足够小
Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
Paul Graham 2009 年的一篇短文：人一旦把某个话题当成自己身份的一部分（宗教、政治、编程语言皆然），讨论就会退化成站队和争吵，因为此时争论的不再是事实，而是"我是谁…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021paulgraham.com编辑精选苏格拉底式教学法：通过提问而非讲授来教学
The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling
记录了作者用纯提问的方式，引导一群小学生从零推导出二进制计数法的课堂实验，展示了苏格拉底式教学法的惊人效果。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022garlikov.com你不能说的话
What You Can't Say (2004)
Paul Graham 2004 年的经典文章，探讨那些因道德时尚而不能公开说出的观点。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2014–2022paulgraham.com编辑精选现实有着惊人的细节量
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
2017 年的博文指出，现实远比我们以为的充满细节：我们习惯用简化的心智模型看世界，直到真正动手做事（比如作者举的造楼梯例子）才发现处处是未曾预料的细节。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2018–2025johnsalvatier.org编辑精选Fast：那些被做得极快的事物
Fast
Patrick Collison 整理的 Fast 清单，罗列历史上在极短时间内完成的大型项目与成就，包括阿拉斯加公路、阿波罗计划、JavaScript 原型等。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2019–2025patrickcollison.com编辑精选