Comments
Aoeletta t1_iz09fg6 wrote
As someone who watched far too many people slowly die when I was much younger than that lesson is usually learned…,
Agreed. Completely agreed.
I am not afraid of being dead. I am afraid of the painful journey that concludes in death. I am terrified of a painful death. I have seen “passed in their sleep”.
None of it is as smooth and painless as we pretend. I am convinced that we don’t show what death actually looks like because we couldn’t function if everyone truly saw it at a young age.
VuurniacSquarewave t1_iz0nwq7 wrote
I am an avid euthanasia supporter since that experience, it would be so easy to go like I've been put under that I would instantly take that option over slowly withering away in a random other way.
Aoeletta t1_iz0o4ql wrote
Absolutely.
I hope by the time I need to consider it, it is a legal option.
TheNotSoGreatPumpkin t1_iz21ytl wrote
I’ve directed my wife to euthanize me in the case of increasing dementia. It can get to a point where you’re incapable of even making an informed decision about it.
I watched my grandmother become un-personed over the course of a decade, and there’s no way I’d ever put myself or anyone else through such a heartbreaking hell.
candykissnips t1_iz3spyr wrote
Lol, like people haven’t been killing themselves for millennia??? humans can jump off high things and die near instantly without euthanasia….
I don’t ever want to live in a society that promotes or welcomes, in any way, suicide….
That troubles me at least.
VuurniacSquarewave t1_iz49qa7 wrote
You will still feel the dread as you are falling. If it isn't perfect you will still have a few final moments at impact.
TheNotSoGreatPumpkin t1_iz1ddiw wrote
The hiding of death is a relatively new social phenomenon. For most of human history we lived in tribal extended families, where everyone was exposed to everything all the time.
I’d surmise the recent sanitization of the dying process in the developed world has contributed greatly to a general increase of neuroticism surrounding it.
stupidwebsite22 t1_iz19oeg wrote
Even the whole thing of drugging the dying people with morphine takes a long time (I’ve seen this happening with cancer patients and super old people where it’s basically assisted dying).
[deleted] t1_iz0d9mv wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iz0kj6c wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iz0ae72 wrote
What is it like?
VuurniacSquarewave t1_iz0nisx wrote
Instant teleport between the two continuities of self-awareness, and unlike when you sleep, there is no sense of how much time may have passed. So if you were to be somehow rebuilt by a supercomputer a billion years after your death or something, it would feel like an instant.
Consistent-River4229 t1_iz169ao wrote
Sounds like my ketamine therapy experiences.
whyshouldiknowwhy t1_iz2afnn wrote
Sounds like my ketamine days
sk3pt1c t1_iz2emk9 wrote
Same, creeped me the fuck out to be honest and was super scary, like we know it intellectually i guess but to actually “experience” it was so strange. Did not abate my fear of death though.
jeffsappendix t1_iz1nbke wrote
After being put under with a similar experience I came to theorize the same possible outcome
The technology at some point will exist to restore our consciousness and perhaps that could be the eternal bliss or damnation that is awaiting us in the "after life"
Failninjaninja t1_iz240zi wrote
I think even at technological peak we would not be able to do what you are describing. I think people are very off at how capable max technology will really be.
VuurniacSquarewave t1_iz2gvpq wrote
I believe that we would find out the hard way that consciousness exists as a unique instance, so even if I were to suddenly spawn a perfect copy of myself 5 meters away from me, while the original me completely evaporated, you would see someone acting just like me, but from my perspective I'd be dead and the clone would feel as if they had just popped into existence.
elementgermanium t1_iz335m2 wrote
But we already know that consciousness doesn’t exist as a unique instance, at least not in this sense. Our life is already broken up into individual sessions of consciousness, lasting a matter of hours. If your persistent “self” survives even something like sleep, would it not survive this?
Anschau t1_iz3oxn2 wrote
It’s the difference between sleep mode and turning off the power I think. Also if we upload our minds to a simulated consciousness we create a new mind and the old still dies. But what if our minds are linked to the hardware and is incorporated into our biological minds? If we begin to shut down our biological brains while allowing the mechanical mind to pick up the slack, without interruption, aren’t we just the same mind now residing somewhere else?
elementgermanium t1_iz3p8xh wrote
I mean, there are other forms of unconsciousness besides sleep, too. If someone’s brain completely shut down due to some severe injury, but then they miraculously recovered, no one would question whether they were still them.
In the end, our consciousness is an emergent phenomenon caused by the pattern of neurons that expresses our unique mind. As long as that pattern is preserved, I argue the persistent “self” is too.
Now, the natural follow-up is, what if you create the “clone” BEFORE destroying the original? In that case, it’s dying, because the “clone” has had time to “branch off”, so to speak. It’s become its own person, similar to, but separate from, you.
Anschau t1_iz3q40f wrote
I think you die regardless in that last scenario. I get what you are saying but that second mind was always going to branch off. As long as the continuation is physically separate then it’s not really you. Let’s say that technology allows us to copy all the memories from one person perfectly and you could create an artificial biological brain that you could integrate into your own consciousness. Now let’s say after you add this new brain power you can install a copy of your memories from your old brain drive to your new additional brain drive, and moving forward all new memories are encoded simultaneously in both brains. Then as your original brain deteriorates the new brain picks up the slack. Lots of problems here, mainly making sure new brain is structured identically to old brain, syncing brains without changing power and personality, the syncing tech itself. But let’s say it all is solved and as your body and mind dies you eventually find yourself in your new brain and the new brain is then linked to a new clone of you or a synthetic body or whatever. I think that’s the only way to maintain self.
elementgermanium t1_iz3qhxb wrote
I don’t see why there needs to be any sort of direct continuity. We have no real reason to say consciousness can’t stop and restart- although no one can experience it to this extent without the kind of tech we’re talking about, we can still extrapolate from things like sleep and anesthesia.
I think of it like a timeline. The new body is the same “you” if its “start” can connect to the end of the “line” of your old body, even if there’s a time gap. With a “branch,” however, the old “line” still ends entirely, with the “branch” continuing as a separate person.
I know this is a little hard to put into words, I might try and create a visual representation- though you’ll have to bear with my poor art skills if I do.
Anschau t1_iz3r5x1 wrote
I think that’s a symbolic continuity and while it may not make much of a difference from an outside observer I think the original you is still gone. I think restarting the same mind from unconsciousness of whatever level is different then flash copying a new version as the old one dies. Though I admit I lack the knowledge to confirm the difference. I think if your priority is that a continuation of your experience keeps going then the flash copy is fine. But the inherent possibility that both could have existed simultaneously even if artificial constraints have made it functionally impossible is evidence to me that they are not the same though again I could not explain why in granular detail. At this point we enter into the philosophy of consciousness and discard the physical laws. When I think of the terror of death though I am not assuaged by the idea of another me out there experiencing the life I could have experienced.
elementgermanium t1_iz3rgai wrote
I personally just don’t see a difference. It’s not like you’d necessarily perceive the transfer even if it were gradual- there’s a lot of factors there. I don’t believe in any sort of “soul” or anything- we are a pattern in the end, and as long as that pattern is preserved, so are we.
Failninjaninja t1_iz2hngt wrote
I don’t think we’ll ever get there but yeah that sort of makes sense however if people didn’t know about the spawn and evaporation it wouldn’t change anything.
cowlinator t1_iz32bz5 wrote
> I think even at technological peak we would not be able to do what you are describing.
What is your basis for this?
> I think people are very off at how capable max technology will really be.
Yes, but that includes both overestimating and underestimating.
elementgermanium t1_iz32zha wrote
The thing is, we have no way of knowing what “max technology” could look like.
This has actually been proposed as a serious idea, although only in very early conceptual stages- it’s referred to as “quantum archaeology” and, simply put, it involves abusing the law of conservation of information to “observe” the past. Obviously, we’re nowhere near this, but to claim it to be impossible? That seems excessive.
Failninjaninja t1_iz35k5y wrote
Obviously difficult to know what peak tech will look like but unless our understanding of physics is completely off kilter there are some things that simply can never be overcome. We can’t ever make things faster than light, size a finite limit in terms of how small something can be. Sci Fi has seriously deluded people as to what is actually realistically feasible
elementgermanium t1_iz35uvn wrote
I mean, you can’t move through space faster than light, but there’s still stuff like Alcubierre drives that could at least theoretically work. We simply can’t know what we don’t know- that is, we can’t know how much knowledge we have yet to attain.
Plus, there’s, to my knowledge, nothing about our current understanding of physics that explicitly rules QA out anyway.
Gladplane t1_iz282vn wrote
Yeah but not for us. We are born too early to experience that so by the time technology gets there we’ll be nothing but soil and worm poop.
Maybe in 200 years, people will live forever in cyborg bodies with multiple backups in case of being murdered and there will be no sicknesses or anything anymore. But we just missed that train
elementgermanium t1_iz33hao wrote
I mean, there is one way. Technically, information can never be completely destroyed- there’s always some way to recover it, no matter how complex and difficult. If we were to build a supercomputer capable of recovering the brain structure of those who’ve already died, we could save even them. The idea is called quantum archaeology, and even if it’s a long way off, it doesn’t matter- because all that means is a larger backlog of people to revive. Of course, this is assuming it’s possible to implement in practice, which we really can’t know yet.
bumharmony t1_iz27wih wrote
The after life is like the customer service robots still idling at the abandoned fairground like in ”Detroit become human”
kapaciosrota t1_iz27k7p wrote
Look up "Roko's Basilisk", but only if you're ready for a bit of existential dread
jeffsappendix t1_iz28glr wrote
I was not ready
Edit: removed thank you
kapaciosrota t1_iz3ujyj wrote
> removed thank you
Lol, for some reason that had me cracking up
Just to make things a bit more stomachable, game theory says the basilisk, once it already exists, gains nothing from actually punishing you so the rational thing to do, for both parties, is to do nothing.
jeffsappendix t1_iz5nz0f wrote
I did enjoy the read, disturbing as it is
StarChild413 t1_iz49cnz wrote
but wouldn't that be invalid as (trying to be as vague as possible for reasons that should become clear) a. because torture can be psychological and the simulation theory isn't disproven we have no proof this isn't just a moot point and a sci-fi version of original sin instead of pascal's wager and b. smart AI would realize everyone doing the same job only means the project lasts as long as stored food supplies
kapaciosrota t1_iz4ci71 wrote
Yes it is kind of refuted, as the basilisk would have no incentive to actually torture those who didn't help build it, it's just a waste of resources. But it's an interesting theory nevertheless.
domsol t1_iz1nptu wrote
Sounds like my last DMT trip
Ootyy t1_iz0bgpo wrote
It isn't
AnaRelentless t1_iz0mgb5 wrote
Death is probably like sleeping without dreaming
Torture-Snap_2547 t1_iz147jj wrote
sometimes you sleep without having dreams.
CrystalEdits t1_iz16tf6 wrote
U do but can't remember it :)
Torture-Snap_2547 t1_iz1av84 wrote
I thought of that, and that is what’s always told, but any proof?
Zomburai t1_iz1u2fb wrote
Neuroscience stuff, mostly
johnp299 t1_iz16qpa wrote
It's what your life was like before you were born.
StarChild413 t1_iz49e5f wrote
do you have anything else that disproves reincarnation
johnp299 t1_iz4zeba wrote
The idea of reincarnation itself is an assertion requiring evidence. Unless you can reliably show, from first principles, that people have reincarnated, there's no need to disprove it.
StarChild413 t1_j088ycm wrote
but if you should treat it as being disproven until it's proven, what incentive is there for anyone to prove it
johnp299 t1_j090hs3 wrote
At least in the sciences I'm familiar with, there's really no logical "proof" of things, just evidence that supports a theory -- for now. The stronger the evidence, the greater the confidence you can have in a theory. But that stops when good contradictory evidence appears. Then you need a better theory.
If you wish, think about the reasons why you think it's a good idea to accept reincarnation, or any belief, at face value. It might be a worthwhile exercise.
LORD_HOKAGE_ t1_iz1972e wrote
Literally the same as being asleep. Literally the same as before you were born. You just don’t exist.
Next time you wake up, as soon as you wake up think “where was I?”
You weren’t in blackness, you were in non existence.
sk3pt1c t1_iz2eq7d wrote
Definitely not the same as being asleep!
LORD_HOKAGE_ t1_iz2exwd wrote
You gonna explain…?
sk3pt1c t1_iz2h3bv wrote
You exist while you sleep, you dream etc, it’s not the same as not existing at all.
LORD_HOKAGE_ t1_iz2ocxj wrote
Well obviously you’re alive and you can possibly dream while you’re asleep, but your conscious experience while you are asleep and not dreaming, is the same as being dead. Nothing.
Being under anesthesia is an even better example. Same as before you were born. Non existence from your personal perspective.
sk3pt1c t1_iz3toql wrote
Maybe but I’m not sure not dreaming is a thing, maybe we all dream but we don’t always remember the dreams.
I don’t know if you’ve had general anesthesia, for me it was a shocking experience. It was like a light switch was flipped and you just aren’t. I have no experience of the switch being flipped either, one second I was chatting away with the nurses and the next I was waking up after, there was no counting down and getting dizzy/blurry and all that they show in the movies. It was truly a mind fucking thing to have happen to me, existentially speaking.
[deleted] t1_iz3zmog wrote
[deleted]
sk3pt1c t1_iz3zo9g wrote
Exactly!
LORD_HOKAGE_ t1_iz4l4cl wrote
Some people don’t dream because of medical/biological issues, if you do certain drugs like smoking weed it greatly lessens your chances of dreaming. Dreaming only happens in REM sleep which takes hours of sleeping to get to that stage. Dreaming isn’t guarenteed, and most sleep is not dreaming sleep.
I e been under anesthesia before and it’s exactly as you describe, one moment you’re awake in the room and literally the next moment you’re waking up from surgery. It’s a very unsettling feeling not being to account for the lost time
cart3r_hall t1_iz2ef40 wrote
Not how sleeping works, but then again this is the philosophy subreddit so throwing out mindless nonsense is the norm.
LORD_HOKAGE_ t1_iz2erbz wrote
So then explain how it works lol 😂
StarChild413 t1_j088ejo wrote
are you seriously doing the fallacy of "if you don't have a solution I'm right"
LORD_HOKAGE_ t1_j08f1fy wrote
I’m doing the “if you can’t explain yourself, you don’t know what you’re talking about”
TxRugger t1_iz0ggkp wrote
Don’t fear the road that leads there as it is life itself. Rejoice in it and skip and hop along because we will all get there eventually.
Tahoma-sans t1_iz1bxgx wrote
It's not the road that leads to death's door that is the problem for me, nor is whatever lies on the other side, well mostly. The main problem is the inevitable painful process of squeezing through that door.
[deleted] t1_iz0kn9z wrote
[removed]
Exodus111 t1_iz0w8eq wrote
I remember the surgeon counting down, when he got to 7 a nurse told me to wake up.
No sense of time in between.
Gonzo458 t1_iz0wq6x wrote
Man, same. My fear is I’ll be in screaming agony and that will carry over into that eternal rest.
PotterWhoLock01 t1_iz0n17z wrote
Being dead is like being stupid, it’s only painful for other people.
Protean_Protein t1_iz0of1u wrote
It’s an old discussion—goes back to antiquity (e.g., Seneca), and Bacon, and many others. There is a fairly common view that death itself can’t be bad, but dying is often quite bad. The ethical upshot of that is pretty obvious: making dying less bad is good. There are other arguments for the badness of death, in e.g., Parfit’s Reasons and Persons.
Here’s an article that denies that we can measure the badness of death for the person who dies: https://doi.org/10.1017/S135824612100031X
ferk t1_j00zzwv wrote
Honestly, not dieing would probably be worse for everyone else in the long run. I feel like it would be much harder for some technology and lines of thought to evolve if dictators didn't die and people who lived in times when certain forms of abuse were normal were still around. Wanting eternal life always stroke me as an egoist attitude. Not to mention the repercussions for the environment and planet resources. I feel like in order to have a new generation of people to be born and give them a fair opportunity to live their own lives you need for the older generation to give them space.
KillerPacifist1 t1_j1h1a76 wrote
Those are certainly problems that would come up if we were immortal, but are those problems worse than a global genocide every generation (aka the current status quo)? I think we underplay how brutal of a tragedy death by aging is simply because it is universal, (currently) inevitable, and we have been desensitized to it over the lifespan of our species.
Another way to look at the tragedy of death by aging to consider this thought experiment:
Imagine tomorrow we all wake up and by magic everyone is immortal and ageless. All of the problems you brought up would immediately manifest. However, these problems could also be solved immediately if we euthanized everyone once they hit 100 years old. Naturally, all of these euthansions will be done to a perfectly healthy person and often against their will, but for this solution to work there can be no exceptions.
If this "solution" seems incredibly unethical to you then I don't know how you can look at the current status quo and deduce it is the better that people die of old age.
I am also curious to hear your reasoning behind your feelings that wanting eternal life is an egotistical attitude. Is it an egotistical attitude for a 20 year old to hope to live past their 50th year in good health? If not, why would it be egotistical for a healthy 50 year old to wish to maintain their health until they are 80? Or an 80 year old to wish the same for 120? And so on?
Someone's life does not lose value as they age. They are not any less of a person nor any less deserving of a healthy future just because they are a few decades older. The death of an 80 year old is just as tragic as the death of a 20 year old and in my opinion neither would be egotistical in wishing for a long, healthy, and happy future.
ferk t1_j1sek6t wrote
In that thought experiment, wouldn't it even be more devastating the massive extinction of not only all human life but most life in the planet (or possibly universe, like in "the last question" from Asimov) when that "magic" of immortality leads us to our own self-destruction in an exponentially increasing immortal over-population that keeps consuming ever decreasing resources? That, or we'd have to be forbidden from birthing new life, so we'd be replacing death with the denial of life for future generations. Is that ethical?
Either way, that "magic" would be a problem, because it would make it much easier for a group of humans to mess things up. You can't just impose control over death and birth like that, not everyone is gonna agree with you, neither "sterilization" nor "euthanization" would really be a "solution" if people are not accepting it willingly. A system seeking control over life and death in a calculated and artificial way governed by humans is likely to fail horribly.
I believe that the needs of humanity as a species outweigh the needs of any particular individual human, or even any one particular generation of humans from a specific point in time.
Our evolution is proof that the death/birth cycle is extremely beneficial for our development as a species. If life were immortal it's likely we wouldn't have ever gotten past the primordial pond.
A life being replaced with the next allows for a sustainable stream of life... yes, I will ultimately die, but in doing so I'll be making space for someone else to be born, more human lives would exist, more opportunities of experiencing and enjoying life, new eyes to explore and learn from new points of view. In my mind those things are the whole point of us existing as a species. If you are stuck with a fixed set of immortal people then you are essentially denying a lot of new humans from their opportunity to exist. I don't think that would be good for humanity.
We cannot all exist at the same time... if we figured out a way to do that then things might be different, but that's not the same question as the one being discussed here. We can't just hand-wave the problems caused by immortality and assume that they will be fixed somehow sometime, cos with that logic one could justify almost anything.
KeytiMelakh1 t1_iz12jsd wrote
« …the problem of death » Is death an actual problem or just part of life?
ting_bu_dong t1_iz1l26g wrote
A problem with no solution is still a problem.
moirasrosesgardens t1_iz1rmbh wrote
What if the solution is to stop seeing it as a problem, though?
ting_bu_dong t1_iz1tviz wrote
Would you take the same approach with, say, your car?
"The solution to the check engine light is to find peace with the check engine light?"
da3astch0ppa t1_iz1x8m6 wrote
A car imo is honestly repairable and easier to troubleshoot than a human though? Unless we have the technology to bring someone back like a car.
Cant compare them.
ting_bu_dong t1_iz205zo wrote
Only because we are more ignorant of how to fix the body than we are the car.
Which is the problem to solve.
They can certainly be compared.
da3astch0ppa t1_iz20q48 wrote
But we can make a car Last forever , always replacing an engine, drivetrain etc. same cant be said for humans because we arent keeping humans alive 200+ years. its not a problem we can solve. But again Death in itself is not a problem. Its part of Life, we need Death.
ting_bu_dong t1_iz27iut wrote
>its not a problem we can solve.
Yet.
Which is why we need to continue to focus on the problem.
Funoichi t1_iz3dynq wrote
Well we won’t be able to solve death entirely because of entropy. I think most of the research now is on extending healthy years.
KillerPacifist1 t1_j1h1rnh wrote
Realistically entropy will only start to become a problem in a few trillion years, and even after the last star dies in a 100 trillion years there are many feasible (and relatively low tech) ways to harvest energy from black holes.
I don't know about you, but I'll start worrying about the technical differences of a few trillion years and forever when I get there.
Funoichi t1_j1h2h5v wrote
I’m pretty sure the breakdown of the human body due to aging and wear and tear would lead to organism death well in advance of trillions of years.
Even the elderly consume the same amount of energy as the young but just eating can’t extend life forever.
Entropy is at work at all times to move systems from highly improbable states like human beings into highly probable states. It’s very much a problem.
It’s at work at all times. It only needs to work once. This is why magic is impossible and why the hard problem of death will never be solved.
Heck even computer systems degrade with time if you wanna go the human consciousness in computers route. Entropy defines the limits of the possible.
KillerPacifist1 t1_j1h5n05 wrote
>I’m pretty sure the breakdown of the human body due to aging and wear and tear would lead to organism death well in advance of trillions of years. > >Even the elderly consume the same amount of energy as the young but just eating can’t extend life forever.
This break down of the body is something encoded into our DNA, not something dictated by the nature of reality. We have found life forms on Earth that appear to be biologically immortal and can continously regenerate themselves, seemingly without end as far as we can tell.
>Entropy is at work at all times to move systems from highly improbable states like human beings into highly probable states. It’s very much a problem.
Entropy only necessarily increases in a closed system. The human body is very much not a closed system. As long as there is other entropy to increase (such as from un-fused hydrogen or un-evaporated black holes), there is no physical reason we cannot keep the entropy of a human body low over very long time periods.
>It’s at work at all times. It only needs to work once. This is why magic is impossible and why the hard problem of death will never be solved.
Again, only in closed systems. If you spill milk on the floor nothing is physically stopping you from sucking it back up into the carton. Though the action of doing so will increase the overall entropy of the universe, even if it decreases the local entropy of the milk-carton-floor system.
>Heck even computer systems degrade with time if you wanna go the human consciousness in computers route. Entropy defines the limits of the possible.
I mean, if you never repair the computer (which you totally can, no magic needed I promise), sure they'll degrade over time.
Funoichi t1_j1kkjq0 wrote
Alright, you’ve satisfied me that you know what entropy is at least. I jest, placating gesture.😅
I decided to look into these immortal organisms, and none of them are truly immortal. Even the regenerating jellyfish have been observed to fully die source. Tardigrades too. Even you wrote appear and seemingly.
Animals can extend life through various means, but not forever, organisms aren’t built to last, species are.
>encoded in dna not nature of reality
I regret to inform you that dna exists in reality so it absolutely is bound by its nature. This can explain how copying mistakes are made, etc.
Even certain animals without telomeres can’t live forever.
Aside from all that, predation, disease, and injuries are also related to entropy and the nature of reality.
To your point about causing other entropy to increase in order to decrease our own, that goes to my point about eating.
Even the highest quality foodstuffs can’t reverse the aging process, no matter how much energy is pumped in. This has to do with more than just telomeres (although I addressed those already). Aging is a complex process that needs to be further understood.
I’m optimistic about the future of aging science and technology also, we should shoot for the stars! But we should be pragmatic about the realities of being an organism.
[deleted] t1_iz37kx7 wrote
[deleted]
elementgermanium t1_iz326qw wrote
We do not need death. One could argue that, under the right definition of “need,” that is an outright contradiction. Even an unsolvable problem would still be a problem.
vulkanosaure t1_iz33d9o wrote
An additional benefit of longer life would be that, given a longer lifespan, individuals are naturally gonna focus on more long term priorities
vulkanosaure t1_iz331vx wrote
Our species used to need death to evolve (death means more birth which means more genes mutations). But today, there's no longer a survival pressure that make our genotype evolve (yes there is a reproduction pressure still but it's doesn't make us evolve in an interesting way any longer).
So it's say that, no we no longer need death today
KillerPacifist1 t1_j1h4j21 wrote
Death also isn't needed for evolution, only varying amounts of reproduction between individuals.
Specifically, death by aging is likely an unintential outcome of evolution, rather than something that evolution needs in order for it to happen. I can get into the mechanics of how aging likely evolved, but it is a bit a biology lesson.
I would also hesitate to say that we have stopped evolving in "interesting ways" (whatever that means). Evolution happens on a very slow time scale and I do not think anyone has a good handle on what our current environment most selects for or how strongly it selects for it. Seeing how it is difficult to point to any evolutionary changes in the past 5,000 years (a vast majority of which were before modern medicine and food production techniques), to say definitively we have stopped evolving in the last 50-100 years since the invention of antibiotics and vaccines and adoption of modern agriculture is jumping the gun a bit.
Especially since it isn't like we've totally eradicated untimely deaths (that is to say death before reproduction). We still have 3.1 million young children dying of starvation and 5 million dying of disease each year. Even ignoring deaths among older children/teenagers, we are losing over 1 person in 20 before they have a chance to reproduce.
Even ignoring the modern death rates among young children and babies, there is still a great discrepancy in birth rates among individuals and that is what evolution actually acts on. An adult who made a conscious decision not to have children (an increasingly common phenomenon) is just as evolutionarily unfit as a baby who died before their first birthday.
For a population to be truly evolutionary stable it needs to be infinitely large (8 billion may approximate that), each individual must mate randomly (definitely not true), and there must be no selection pressures (unlikely, as I layed out above).
[deleted] t1_iz1yz6f wrote
[deleted]
cowlinator t1_iz31xtn wrote
A philosopher-type person named Jesus of Nazareth said "The poor you will always have with you". To date, we really don't have any practical solution to poverty.
But what if the solution to abject poverty is to stop seeing it as a problem?
speedygoonzalez t1_iz35fqs wrote
I think it would be more of a problem if we lived forever. Death is very sad and all that but its what all of us have to deal with living things will die whether it be from aging or coming into to contact with something that will make death happen.
[deleted] t1_iz1sxmb wrote
[deleted]
Zomburai t1_iz1tof2 wrote
I want the movie to end, but I'd sure like to be able to appreciate it after the fact. I'd like to leave the theater, talk about the movie with my friends, get some distance to incorporate it into my understanding, hell, I might even want to see another movie.
I don't want the theater to collapse with me in it as soon as the credits are done rolling.
elementgermanium t1_iz32ltf wrote
At the risk of sounding callous, I don’t care about any “cycles.” In the end, boredom is a problem with many potential solutions- we don’t need death specifically. Even in the worst-case, where we’ve “done everything,” couldn’t we develop a way to modify or suppress our own memories to make experiences “fresh” again?
Arguments like these, where the problem created is so much milder than the one that’s solved, feel like philosophical sour grapes. We are mortal, and without extreme technological advances, we’re going to stay that way, so we come up with excuses as to why it’s ostensibly a good thing, so we don’t have to confront the problem.
ting_bu_dong t1_iz1tlzy wrote
Well, I would think voluntary death wouldn't be a problem.
Like any other machine, you fix it because you want it to keep running.
[deleted] t1_iz1vecl wrote
[deleted]
ting_bu_dong t1_iz1zwg2 wrote
For the later point, it can be argued that we are already past the point where those in charge get to be in charge for too long.
Jefferson suggested a new constitution every 19 years, for example.
[deleted] t1_iz2dws6 wrote
[deleted]
ting_bu_dong t1_iz2fh0j wrote
We have to find a solution to the issue anyway, already, was supposed to be the takeaway.
Whatever system that stops people from retaining power past a certain age obviously continues past that age.
I'm thinking around 55 or 65, maybe.
StarChild413 t1_iz494t7 wrote
> I think the perfect situation would be like the end of The Good Place, people can stay as long as they want and do whatever but they can leave when they're ready.
I always maintain that that solution was kind of a philosophical betrayal of the rest of the series's thematic setup (I'll be happy to explain if you want)
> But also would that possibly set the world off balance? Imagine being born into a world that the same people have been in charge of for centuries before you were born. Some Altered Carbon stuff. Death is the great equalizer.
then why not just have a world where the only deaths are unnatural as people are euphemism-for-euthanized when their beliefs/ideas are proven wrong so outdated views don't hang around any longer than necessary
vulkanosaure t1_iz33muz wrote
It's a good point, but it really depends how our brain will perceive time. It might be that reducing aging also means enabling with more energy which in turns allow you to stay passionate and curious
Failninjaninja t1_iz23sfs wrote
It’s not an either / or problem. If we could live forever we could also likely opt not to.
StarChild413 t1_iz490hw wrote
yeah but lives don't have one arc you'd have to stretch over longer runtime like movies and I'm sure (if their basic needs were otherwise provided for yada yada yada) a lot of people would want to watch infinite seasons of their favorite shows or at least they're more likely than not to prefer the show get renewed unless not only is the ending satisfying but there's no more places the story could go that the ending leaves hanging
HKei t1_iz1omn8 wrote
As someone who's currently alive, I find the prospect of my eventual death very annoying.
Bovaiveu t1_iz4bsgc wrote
I believe thinking about dying is worse than dying. If someone could give you the ability to be ignorant of death, would you take it?
HKei t1_iz4bz5s wrote
Nah. I'm not worried about dying, I just want to avoid it to the extent I'm capable of. Not being aware of death would just make me worse at avoiding it with no upside I can see.
Bovaiveu t1_iz5korf wrote
I suppose one could always have ones neurons mirrored into a sort of bio-synthetic matrix. Then gradually offload the processes to the "other side" key would be maintaining conscioussness at both sides until the original body is deceased.
Assuming this matrix doesn't deteriorate one could potentially exist until one tires of it.
EdHerzriesig t1_iz2313g wrote
Death is out of our control, so no it's not a problem. We should however address our strained relationship with death in general. That is a problem worth solving.
heskey30 t1_iz3iy41 wrote
Why? As living animals it's our prime directive to stay alive even if it's eventually a losing battle. What kind of enlightenment do you think we'll achieve by going against our nature? I suspect all we get out of it is the possibility of suicidal ideation.
EdHerzriesig t1_iz3sjv4 wrote
Your nature and my nature is to die at some time. It's not going against the nature of what is human to accept death as an integral part of existence.
I do not see how this would promote suicidal ideation. If anything then I'd suspect the opposite. A closer relationship to death might make us more content and relaxed with our own humanity.
heskey30 t1_iz3uvxf wrote
This sounds like dogma to me. I haven't heard a concrete reason that death being inevitable implies we should accept it.
There are plenty of reasons why we shouldn't. It's not in the nature of a living being to accept death because living beings are driven by survival and reproduction and death is the opposite of that. From the moment we come into this world, our bodies scream at us to avoid death. It makes surrounding people unhappy. It means the destruction of memories, personalities, and abilities in the dying person. How does accepting it benefit us? How does it grant wisdom?
Everyone who isn't a child knows we're going to die, and we shouldn't try to hide that fact because that would be lying - but the pervading culture that we should make peace with death or pretend we think it's a good thing in an abstract way seems like it can only do harm.
EdHerzriesig t1_iz465rf wrote
I am more of the opposite understanding. However, feel free to agonize over your mortality by trying to solve it as a problem. If transhumanism is your thing and you think that imortality would solve your problem with death then by all means, although I personally would rather put my energy into something else. Death dosen't only have to tragic or sad just as life dosen't have to be tragic and sad.
VitriolicViolet t1_izc933l wrote
this.
why bother wasting life on death? far too many people on this sub have an irrational focus on and fear of dying.
if any given problem is inevitable and unaddressable why waste energy on it?
VitriolicViolet t1_izc8w0j wrote
why?
its just death, never understood why it bothers people so much.
everything ends, literally everything.
Low_Okra_1459 t1_iz3w5kn wrote
What if we see death as the solution to life? Problem fixed.
0biwanCannoli t1_iz0ekpi wrote
Yoda: Forest fires promote new growth.
Amaziah12 t1_iz289yu wrote
Growth, forest fires produce they do* I'm convinced Yoda just speaks English in Spanish format haha
ting_bu_dong t1_iz074bf wrote
>In his book, The Case Against Death previous NYU philosophy professor, Ingemar Patrick Linden, veers away from the predominant philosophical notion that we should find ways to accept death as natural and inevitable and see it for what it is: 'simply awful.'
I'm with Ingemar Linden on this one. If something is a problem, "accept the problem" isn't a solution. Instead, you should try to find the root cause, and eliminate (or, at least mitigate) the problem.
Like this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._Sinclair
>He has expressed the view that advances in aging research could enable humans to live to be 200 years old.
Is he right? Will he succeed in moving towards that goal? Beats me. But he's not wrong for trying.
Anyway, the rest of the article seems to be just different ways to find ways to accept death as natural and inevitable. Which is solving a different problem: Not the problem of death itself, but the problem of dealing with death.
Solve the one and you (in large part) solve the other, too.
Scrybblyr t1_iz0hmt0 wrote
If you lived until 400, you would not have solved anything pertaining to death, just delayed it.100% of people would still die, so I mean kudos on the longevity and everything, but making lives longer doesn't actually address death.
MaxChaplin t1_iz0z7ex wrote
The longer you live, the more chance you have to undergo subsequent life extension procedures. Aubrey de Grey called it "longevity escape velocity".
Scrybblyr t1_iz13ima wrote
True. I have no issue with longevity or the study of it. I once checked the Internet for the people with the most longevity. It was the Japanese, but mostly with their diet from the 70's, vs what they eat now, which is somewhat Americanized. So I planned to start eating more fish and rice, but... I never really got around to it.
But your point is well taken, it is incredible what options are available now, and the advances that have been made.
VuurniacSquarewave t1_iz49f5k wrote
This opinion from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiroemon_Kimura always stuck with me: "He credited eating small portions of food (hara hachi bun me) as the key to a long and healthy life."
Scrybblyr t1_izbq8yx wrote
Oh yes, the restricted calories method. I don't think that's on the menu for me... I mean look how I worded that. :)
ting_bu_dong t1_iz0ta70 wrote
> or, at least mitigate
Did you guys all miss this part?
Edit: The point was that the goal should be to 1) acknowledge that death is the problem; and 2) from that, at least try to eliminate the problem. Even if that is not successful. You may be able to, at least, mitigate it.
But the main thing, the starting point, is to not fool yourself into the notion that it isn't a problem. The problem certainly isn't going to get fixed if it is simply excused.
Scrybblyr t1_iz12qqn wrote
But it doesn't mitigate it, even a fraction of a percent, it just delays it.
If some people see death as a problem to be dealt with (and eventually solved) then I have no issue taking advantage of whatever scientific breakthroughs they might come up with. If they can discover a way to stop our telomeres from fraying, I'll sign right up. But I view death as a necessary part of life. I don't buy into transhumanism, and it seems like this notion may come from that school of thought.
To be fair, as a Christian, I already believe in eternal life, so I have less riding on the notion of "solving" the problem of death than one might have if one believes the grave is the end of consciousness.
ting_bu_dong t1_iz14871 wrote
The fact that, eventually, you can't fix a machine anymore, and you have to deal with that, doesn't mean that you should neglect fixing the machine at all.
> I don't buy into transhumanism, and it seems like this notion may come from that school of thought.
>To be fair, as a Christian, I already believe in eternal life
Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?
Scrybblyr t1_iz14luk wrote
>The fact that, eventually, you can't fix a machine anymore, and you have to deal with that, doesn't mean that you should neglect fixing the machine at all.
Well good, then I'm glad I never even came close to suggesting that.
​
>Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?
No.
ting_bu_dong t1_iz14vri wrote
> Well good, then I'm glad I never even came close to suggesting that.
I'd think "acceptance" does, in fact, suggest that. "Eh, body's broken, what are ya gonna do?"
>>Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?
>No.
Well, I mean, if the goal is to live forever.
Scrybblyr t1_iz1ckne wrote
>Well good, then I'm glad I never even came close to suggesting that.
>
>I'd think "acceptance" does, in fact, suggest that. "Eh, body's broken, what are ya gonna do?
If you actually want to conflate "acknowleding that death is part of life" with "neglecting to fix the machine at all," that is certainly a choice you can make. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
​
>Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?
>
>No.
>
>Well, I mean, if the goal is to live forever.
The goal of transhumanism may be to live forever. The goal of Christianity is not to live forever. Christians believe that everyone does live forever, albeit not in the same place.
ting_bu_dong t1_iz1kswu wrote
>The goal of Christianity is not to live forever. Christians believe that everyone does live forever, albeit not in the same place.
The goal of a religion isn't to believe the beliefs of that religion? Well, alright.
Scrybblyr t1_iz2o82v wrote
>The goal of a religion isn't to believe the beliefs of that religion? Well, alright.
That isn't what I said. I said:
>The goal of Christianity is not to live forever. Christians believe that everyone does live forever, albeit not in the same place.
Funoichi t1_iz3h9on wrote
And yet Christians are obsessed with death to the extent of burying heads in sand. That’s the whole thing about atheism, it’s taking life cold turkey, no opiates involved to placate.
Atheists see christianity as a death cult, because if this life is of so little value, there’s no reason not to advance to the afterlife right away.
It’s a worldview exemplified by fear and one that devalues and renders our actual lives meaningless auditions.
Scrybblyr t1_iz4r7cc wrote
>And yet Christians are obsessed with death to the extent of burying heads in sand. That’s the whole thing about atheism, it’s taking life cold turkey, no opiates involved to placate.
Some have argued that atheism is the opiate for people who cannot bear the thought of a holy, omniscient, omnipresent God to whom they must one day give an account.
​
​
>Atheists see christianity as a death cult, because if this life is of so little value, there’s no reason not to advance to the afterlife right away.
I suppose some atheists may hold that view, if some atheists are ignorant enough about Christianity to think that it ascribes "little value" to life.
​
​
>It’s a worldview exemplified by fear and one that devalues and renders our actual lives meaningless auditions.
Spoken as if by someone utterly unaware of the worldview in question. Christianity holds life in very high regard indeed. Pro-life, one might say.
Since you seem kind of condescening and rude, vs someone interested in discussion, I will go ahead and block you at this point, as I am not interested in that kind of exchange. Peace.
quantic56d t1_iz0g367 wrote
You don’t. Even with life extension technology you can be killed at any time. It happens constantly around the world. Also the longer you live the greater your odds of dying in an accident. I’m a lot of fun at parties.
Provokateur t1_iz0pmkp wrote
Are you saying death should be eliminated?
That'd be nice, but there's no currently conceivable way that will ever happen. What you're suggesting is that people might live longer. But the difference between dying at 80 vs. dying at 200 is the same as the difference between dying at 40 vs. dying at 80. Death is still inevitable, and still needs to be coped with.
I feel like you either have a massive blindspot or you're just trying verbal gymnastics to trick yourself into an argument you know is wrong.
ting_bu_dong t1_iz0tq8r wrote
> Death is still inevitable, and still needs to be coped with.
Coped with? Sure, maybe. Accepted? No.
But: If there's a problem with with your car, for example, you can probably cope with it. But that's not the same as trying to fix it.
And saying that "well, eventually, all cars stop working" isn't an excuse to not fix it.
Coping with the machine being broken would be precisely the wrong thing to do.
The point is to always keep in mind that death is a problem.
[deleted] t1_iz1zo8o wrote
Is dying at 40 the same as dying at 80 though? We rightly view young death i.e. less continuous existence for the person in question as a "wrong" as it takes away the potential for experience.
Then consider death at 20000 years. Is that conceptually the same as dying at 20? Or would we find that over such lengths of time human experience becomes fundamentally different with people, for example, reaching terminal ennui and seeking out death as either an end or an adventure?
K1ngR00ster t1_iz19z6z wrote
The root problem of death is life. That conscious experience is what gives us suffering and the fear of death. You’d have to put an end to all potential life if you wanted to solve the problem.
Of course that’s not an option but neither is living forever. That’s why most philosophers teach to accept it as it is ultimately the course of the universe that decides our fate.
mikKiske t1_iz29eeo wrote
Every time I try to rationalize death I hit a wall where the rationalization process can't go further.
What scares us from death is thinking that we would still have some form of consciousness where we would regret everything that was wrong with our lives, like saying "all my life struggles and efforts to be happy just to end up like this"? When we learn that someone has died you think that; a friend of yours that was studying and working really hard to have a good life in future years suddenly stops living, you see all that wasted potential and it scares you that the same thing can happen to you.
But surely in practice that won't happen, you die and that's it, no regrets. The problem is we can't shake off that feeling by rationalizing it, or at least I can't, and the fear will always be there.
projectileboy t1_iz1gi3r wrote
There is much worth reading in this topic that is not referenced in the article. I highly recommend Death by Shelly Kagan, and also Death and the Afterlife by Samuel Scheffler.
[deleted] t1_iz1anxw wrote
[removed]
bihari_baller t1_iz4gjwc wrote
>The Tibetan Book of the Dead
Thanks for the suggestion.
[deleted] t1_iz4nbag wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iz05t8r wrote
The article is a single point of view and thus flawed. From the stand point of a body is not the only perspective available to our human brains. I am looking at my own death as an old man and more and more I find the human conditioning that has existed since history began is what is being discussed here; death is something to be afraid of. I also take issue with his quote that Buddha believed life was about suffering. Not what I am taking out of his readings. But back to the question at hand, can death help us live and I for one say Hell yes and not because of fear. To fear death is to fear growth. What I do appreciate about the article and this question is I believe humans would benefit from talking about death more often and taking the topic away from religions who have created the disillusionment in the first place.
Protean_Protein t1_iz07o8s wrote
What article is not a single point of view? What even is this objection. You write like a bot.
100FootWallOfFog t1_iz0mdhx wrote
Personally I write all of my articles from differing viewpoints so that my audience can truly and fully appreciate the depths of my insanity.
Protean_Protein t1_iz0y48v wrote
We write like that sometimes too.
Provokateur t1_iz0q69j wrote
To paraphrase: This article presents arguments. But there are other, contrary, arguments. Thus it's "flawed."
nikola1975 t1_iz1kb06 wrote
I would highly recommend Shelly Kagan's course on death, it is part of Yale's Open Courses initiative. It touches many interesting topics.
4354574 t1_iz3iakq wrote
The reality of death can be useful to appreciate life, but I don't believe it is necessary. I think a better way to look at this is by accepting that impermanence and change is woven into the fabric of the universe. We call the impermanence that leads to the cessation of the physical body 'death', but impermanence happens all around us all the time at many levels.
f anything, I think that we don't live long enough to learn what this life is all about. If we became immortal we would be given the time to wonder just what the eff is going on out there, or in our minds, until we have achieved some sort of resolution (enlightenment, in the Eastern traditions) and that is what truly leads to wisdom.
mxpx77 t1_iz0ose6 wrote
but he gives no fucks and has no intention of stopping
Consistent-River4229 t1_iz16nzh wrote
Am I the only one who couldn't read it? Something popped up for me to subscribe to.
zaxluther t1_iz1qxx3 wrote
I was given an option to “read first” under the subscribe button
jaysin1983 t1_iz21u9d wrote
Death has a song called “The Philosopher”
1T_Guy t1_iz22ee2 wrote
>Momento Mori Motherfucker
I'll admit, I laughed.
vulkanosaure t1_iz32myj wrote
Death used to be an important feature for the evolution of our species. Now we can argue that it's no longer the case and that it's relevant to try and delay it
swissiws t1_iz3t2au wrote
Death is a bitch
8puss t1_iz455rw wrote
Death is the eternal lover of life.
Without death.. life wouldn’t be beautiful. Life without death would be cancer.
It’s hard but it’s true.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_iz0iw1y wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
BOOaghost t1_iz11cl3 wrote
I do not agree that children are ignorant to death. Children have come from the place we return to at death. It is adults who are ignorant.
cowlinator t1_iz32tnr wrote
> Children have come from the place we return to at death.
Ok but how would a child know that?
"Mommy, where do babies come from-- wait neverminded I somehow fully understand where I came from."
BOOaghost t1_iz3pppa wrote
"Where do babies come from?" It is a different physical matter. I'm talking about energetic consciousness. Adults are taught to focus on materiality. Children live in a much more fluid attitude.
cowlinator t1_iz4c07i wrote
> Adults are taught to focus on materiality. Children live in a much more fluid attitude.
My personal observations are of the exact opposite.
BOOaghost t1_iz4u0v7 wrote
Interesting. You observe adults imagination to be more dynamic than childrens?
[deleted] t1_iz12okd wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_iz1d695 wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Eurico_Souza t1_iz46fwa wrote
When enemies go to hell (?)
bildramer t1_iz92ii3 wrote
Saying that death is straighforwardly bad? Nah, that's too obvious, so it's a stupid and unwise opinion. The smart and wise opinion must be that death is good, actually.
I'm not convinced that there's anything more to discuss. It's all this kind of trivial contrarianism. Attempts to signal intelligence by playing devil's advocate - "what if bad thing... good?"
thebottle265 t1_izaebrr wrote
Man accepts death but not the hour of his death
fane1967 t1_iz3p1gv wrote
The finite attribute of life is exactly what makes it fun. Gods must be top procrastinators.
amehdas t1_iz3z4gu wrote
Death is like life : a part of the evolutionary process. Actually the creation itself evolves through the process of life and death of its constituents. So it's the creation as a whole that evolves through life and death cycle of its constituents. Everything that has life should come to an end at one point or other and help the creation evolve.
If a thing that cannot die continues to suffer and long for death. It is well documented in the movie pirates of Caribbean when hector barbosa and his crew long for death.
A thing when dies simply ceases to exist individually. If it wants to live forever it becomes greedy and the greedy is evil. So, it comes to a simple logical end that either something cease to exist individually at some point or become an evil wanting eternity and keep suffering.
concept_I t1_iz4owyu wrote
Death can help us live but live can also help us death.
[deleted] t1_iz1gg56 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iz1s1ei wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iz31fir wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iz3gcfe wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_iz3zcza wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
ACOOLBEAR3 t1_iz3h9kw wrote
Hi Find JESUS Fine LIFE.
VuurniacSquarewave t1_iz087ll wrote
Since I've been put under for surgery, I've known what not existing is like. I'm not afraid being dead, just of the road that leads there.