5 ms·

Alternatively, if your faith includes the concept of a soul, imagine a soul being irrevocably destroyed; it didn't go anywhere, it was just lost. Yes, I'm tryi

by PakG1 11y ago

Alternatively, if your faith includes the concept of a soul, imagine a soul being irrevocably destroyed; it didn't go anywhere, it was just lost. Yes, I'm trying to imagine that, and I don't see why it's such a big issue. This seems so contradictory to what people claim their philosophies to be. It's like the environment. People cry about how we're destroying the earth, but they're not actually worried about the earth. They're worried about themselves. It's like how Ian Malcolm comments derisively in The Lost World that humans may not survive, but the earth would be just find. Somewhere some microbes would survive underneath all the dirt blasted everywhere in the apocalypse, and life would start again. I can understand the concept of ceasing to exist. I have not had anyone be able to explain to me why that makes that person so afraid, other than the fact that it just does. And if you can't imagine an eternity of life interacting with other people in happiness, how exactly do you envision an afterlife? Hehe, well, I think that's the key point, isn't it? You're talking about interacting with other people in happiness for eternity. I specifically said "forever on this earth", not "forever, period". I don't think you can achieve what you're talking about on this earth. We've had centuries of modern civilization to figure out how to stop both large-scale wars and petty relationship spats, and it's debatable whether we'll reach a level that has no pain. Yes, we've gotten better, especially if you read some of the literature on the topic, but age-old problems remain and I find no reason to think that they'll one day disappear. Living forever doesn't mean becoming increasingly decrepit. The same processes that create a hard stop at 120 are what make a 100-year-old systematically less healthy than a 25-year-old, and they require the same fixes. Anything that would successfully keep you alive forever must necessarily keep you free of age-related health complications forever. I actually deal with my worries about this issue in a comment below. I think people go about this subject very selfishly without thinking of the greater consequences.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> I can understand the concept of ceasing to exist. I have not had anyone be able to explain to me why that makes that person so afraid, other than the fact that it just does. Hard to explain (surprising to even have to explain), but it seems worth a shot. Consider a degenerative mental disease like Alzheimer's; does the idea of suffering from that, or someone in your family suffering from that, bother you? Why? If the disease robbed you/them of all sense of self, including any part of you/them that would be bothered by it, does that mean there's no harm done because you/they are no longer aware of it? Assuming you find that concept as horrific as I do, then a more permanent loss of any "sense of self" should be quite analogous. Both are horrifying atrocities. Both need to stop. And I don't understand how the latter can seem any less horrific than the former. Yet far more attention is paid to the former, while a hundred and fifty thousand people die every day. > You're talking about interacting with other people in happiness for eternity. I specifically said "forever on this earth", not "forever, period". I don't think you can achieve what you're talking about on this earth. We've had centuries of modern civilization to figure out how to stop both large-scale wars and petty relationship spats, and it's debatable whether we'll reach a level that has no pain. Yes, we've gotten better, especially if you read some of the literature on the topic, but age-old problems remain and I find no reason to think that they'll one day disappear. Fixing mortality is one of many things that needs to happen. Given all the time in the world, I'm quite confident we can fix the various lesser problems (and next to mortality, everything is a lesser problem). Fixing scarcity would go a long way. AI (or something very much like it) seems like the surest path, though it requires a great deal of care to get right. And I don't see why we should be limited to "this earth", or "this universe" if it turns out there are others. Forever is a very long time. I have hope. And more importantly, I'm working towards those goals. > I actually deal with my worries about this issue in a comment below. I think people go about this subject very selfishly without thinking of the greater consequences. If you're referring to your comment about economic disparity making longevity a privilege: probably, but not for long. It's too important not to make universally available. And to be explicitly clear: I don't think anyone should die; I'm not just worried about myself or those I care about (though I'd be lying if I said I didn't care about them more). But I think it's entirely possible to build a world in which nobody dies. That itself may lead to problems, but they'll be problems worth having and worth solving, and we'll have plenty of time to solve them.
- PakG1 11y ago
  Hard to explain (surprising to even have to explain), but it seems worth a shot. Consider a degenerative mental disease like Alzheimer's; does the idea of suffering from that, or someone in your family suffering from that, bother you? Why? If the disease robbed you/them of all sense of self, including any part of you/them that would be bothered by it, does that mean there's no harm done because you/they are no longer aware of it? Assuming you find that concept as horrific as I do, then a more permanent loss of any "sense of self" should be quite analogous. I like that you're actually trying to answer my question instead of being dismissive about it. Unfortunately, I'd say it's difficult to compare Alzheimer's with cessation of existence in this manner. One is the process of losing your sense of self. I agree that must be extremely frightening. Losing control of yourself is no doubt hard. However, in discussing death, I am referring to the result, not the process. The process of suffering leading to death can horrific, especially if disease is the cause. The end result of not existing, I am not able to put in the same sentence like you do. Even after carefully reading your explanation, it seems to me that you've done a masterful job explaining why the process is horrifying. But I already agree with that. You haven't been able to explain to me why the result after the process is over is so scary. It may be possible we'd just end up going in circles about this, which would be too bad. I am seriously waiting for someone to explain to me in a manner that I can understand why cessation of existence is so terrifying to them. edit addendum: Questions regarding scarcity and whether it can be resolved even with new technology and expansion to other galaxies unfortunately cannot be easily resolved until it happens. That being said, I have little faith that humanity can have that Star Trek epiphany. We have enough food to end world hunger today. The problem is distribution and individuals willing to sacrifice for the greater good. This is true for both third world nations that experience famine and inner city slums in the first world. The political will simply isn't there. Don't get me wrong, I really do wish I could think better of humanity.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > I like that you're actually trying to answer my question instead of being dismissive about it. And I appreciate that you're attempting to understand another point of view. Thank you. > One is the process of losing your sense of self. I agree that must be extremely frightening. Losing control of yourself is no doubt hard. There's a difference here between what I'm talking about and what you're talking about, and it's a critically important one: there's a big difference between "losing control of yourself" and "losing yourself". I mentioned degenerative mental disorders specifically because that's a case where you're not still "in there" somewhere. I'm talking about the case where there's no "you" left. You are your mind; if your mind is gone, there's no "you" anymore. The distinction is important for people who would equate that entirely with death. You thought I was talking about the process, but I'm very much talking about the end result. It would be as if you'd said "well, the part of a degenerative mental disease where you're forgetting everything you are is horrible, but once you're done forgetting everything you are, and forgetting that there was even something to forget, what's wrong with that?". > However, in discussing death, I am referring to the result, not the process. So am I. The process varies depending on how you die. The result is always the same: no more you. The suffering is nothing compared to the non-existence at the end; suffering can be lived through and gotten past, but death cannot. (This point of view is rather diametrically opposed to the one that views death as a potential "end to suffering".) > You haven't been able to explain to me why the result after the process is over is so scary. Fear isn't a required component, though it's certainly a healthy reaction (same as if something large and hungry is running at you: danger, thing to avoid, fight against it or flee from it). The key point is that it's a horrible atrocity for anyone to die. One less mind in the world; one less light in the darkness; one less set of unique experiences; one sentient being annihilated forever. For what it's worth, part of the reason I find this question hard to answer is not because I find it complicated, but because I find it very simple; it's as if you asked "why is 1 > 0?". To which the answer is "because that's how we define 1 and 0". Why is life better than death? Because life is, and death isn't. But if you found that answer convincing, you'd already be convinced; there's a difference in fundamental value systems here. > Questions regarding scarcity and whether it can be resolved even with new technology and expansion to other galaxies unfortunately cannot be easily resolved until it happens. That being said, I have little faith that humanity can have that Star Trek epiphany. I very much doubt the future will look like Star Trek; I think we can do much better, though fiction certainly provides some useful inspiration. How soon we can get there is another question entirely. I want to make this world better, because 1) wanting to do so is a required first step to make it happen, and 2) if you start from the premise that it's the only one we've got, then we have to make the most of it. I personally feel that mortality and death is the biggest evil in the world, and the one worth spending the most effort to fight first, but it certainly isn't the last one, and when we're done with it we shouldn't hang up our tools and rest. For a bit of writing I find particularly inspiring on this topic, see http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html ; it's a transparent allegory, but one I find quite compelling. > I really do wish I could think better of humanity. You're part of humanity. What are you, personally, doing to solve the problem? Blaming "political will" is one thing, but large-scale apathy is at least as big a roadblock to solving issues on that scale. The first step to solving a problem is to decide it needs solving. And deciding that it can't be solved makes it harder to solve.

by PakG1 11y ago

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> I can understand the concept of ceasing to exist. I have not had anyone be able to explain to me why that makes that person so afraid, other than the fact that it just does. Hard to explain (surprising to even have to explain), but it seems worth a shot. Consider a degenerative mental disease like Alzheimer's; does the idea of suffering from that, or someone in your family suffering from that, bother you? Why? If the disease robbed you/them of all sense of self, including any part of you/them that would be bothered by it, does that mean there's no harm done because you/they are no longer aware of it? Assuming you find that concept as horrific as I do, then a more permanent loss of any "sense of self" should be quite analogous. Both are horrifying atrocities. Both need to stop. And I don't understand how the latter can seem any less horrific than the former. Yet far more attention is paid to the former, while a hundred and fifty thousand people die every day. > You're talking about interacting with other people in happiness for eternity. I specifically said "forever on this earth", not "forever, period". I don't think you can achieve what you're talking about on this earth. We've had centuries of modern civilization to figure out how to stop both large-scale wars and petty relationship spats, and it's debatable whether we'll reach a level that has no pain. Yes, we've gotten better, especially if you read some of the literature on the topic, but age-old problems remain and I find no reason to think that they'll one day disappear. Fixing mortality is one of many things that needs to happen. Given all the time in the world, I'm quite confident we can fix the various lesser problems (and next to mortality, everything is a lesser problem). Fixing scarcity would go a long way. AI (or something very much like it) seems like the surest path, though it requires a great deal of care to get right. And I don't see why we should be limited to "this earth", or "this universe" if it turns out there are others. Forever is a very long time. I have hope. And more importantly, I'm working towards those goals. > I actually deal with my worries about this issue in a comment below. I think people go about this subject very selfishly without thinking of the greater consequences. If you're referring to your comment about economic disparity making longevity a privilege: probably, but not for long. It's too important not to make universally available. And to be explicitly clear: I don't think anyone should die; I'm not just worried about myself or those I care about (though I'd be lying if I said I didn't care about them more). But I think it's entirely possible to build a world in which nobody dies. That itself may lead to problems, but they'll be problems worth having and worth solving, and we'll have plenty of time to solve them.

PakG1 11y ago
Hard to explain (surprising to even have to explain), but it seems worth a shot. Consider a degenerative mental disease like Alzheimer's; does the idea of suffering from that, or someone in your family suffering from that, bother you? Why? If the disease robbed you/them of all sense of self, including any part of you/them that would be bothered by it, does that mean there's no harm done because you/they are no longer aware of it? Assuming you find that concept as horrific as I do, then a more permanent loss of any "sense of self" should be quite analogous. I like that you're actually trying to answer my question instead of being dismissive about it. Unfortunately, I'd say it's difficult to compare Alzheimer's with cessation of existence in this manner. One is the process of losing your sense of self. I agree that must be extremely frightening. Losing control of yourself is no doubt hard. However, in discussing death, I am referring to the result, not the process. The process of suffering leading to death can horrific, especially if disease is the cause. The end result of not existing, I am not able to put in the same sentence like you do. Even after carefully reading your explanation, it seems to me that you've done a masterful job explaining why the process is horrifying. But I already agree with that. You haven't been able to explain to me why the result after the process is over is so scary. It may be possible we'd just end up going in circles about this, which would be too bad. I am seriously waiting for someone to explain to me in a manner that I can understand why cessation of existence is so terrifying to them. edit addendum: Questions regarding scarcity and whether it can be resolved even with new technology and expansion to other galaxies unfortunately cannot be easily resolved until it happens. That being said, I have little faith that humanity can have that Star Trek epiphany. We have enough food to end world hunger today. The problem is distribution and individuals willing to sacrifice for the greater good. This is true for both third world nations that experience famine and inner city slums in the first world. The political will simply isn't there. Don't get me wrong, I really do wish I could think better of humanity.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > I like that you're actually trying to answer my question instead of being dismissive about it. And I appreciate that you're attempting to understand another point of view. Thank you. > One is the process of losing your sense of self. I agree that must be extremely frightening. Losing control of yourself is no doubt hard. There's a difference here between what I'm talking about and what you're talking about, and it's a critically important one: there's a big difference between "losing control of yourself" and "losing yourself". I mentioned degenerative mental disorders specifically because that's a case where you're not still "in there" somewhere. I'm talking about the case where there's no "you" left. You are your mind; if your mind is gone, there's no "you" anymore. The distinction is important for people who would equate that entirely with death. You thought I was talking about the process, but I'm very much talking about the end result. It would be as if you'd said "well, the part of a degenerative mental disease where you're forgetting everything you are is horrible, but once you're done forgetting everything you are, and forgetting that there was even something to forget, what's wrong with that?". > However, in discussing death, I am referring to the result, not the process. So am I. The process varies depending on how you die. The result is always the same: no more you. The suffering is nothing compared to the non-existence at the end; suffering can be lived through and gotten past, but death cannot. (This point of view is rather diametrically opposed to the one that views death as a potential "end to suffering".) > You haven't been able to explain to me why the result after the process is over is so scary. Fear isn't a required component, though it's certainly a healthy reaction (same as if something large and hungry is running at you: danger, thing to avoid, fight against it or flee from it). The key point is that it's a horrible atrocity for anyone to die. One less mind in the world; one less light in the darkness; one less set of unique experiences; one sentient being annihilated forever. For what it's worth, part of the reason I find this question hard to answer is not because I find it complicated, but because I find it very simple; it's as if you asked "why is 1 > 0?". To which the answer is "because that's how we define 1 and 0". Why is life better than death? Because life is, and death isn't. But if you found that answer convincing, you'd already be convinced; there's a difference in fundamental value systems here. > Questions regarding scarcity and whether it can be resolved even with new technology and expansion to other galaxies unfortunately cannot be easily resolved until it happens. That being said, I have little faith that humanity can have that Star Trek epiphany. I very much doubt the future will look like Star Trek; I think we can do much better, though fiction certainly provides some useful inspiration. How soon we can get there is another question entirely. I want to make this world better, because 1) wanting to do so is a required first step to make it happen, and 2) if you start from the premise that it's the only one we've got, then we have to make the most of it. I personally feel that mortality and death is the biggest evil in the world, and the one worth spending the most effort to fight first, but it certainly isn't the last one, and when we're done with it we shouldn't hang up our tools and rest. For a bit of writing I find particularly inspiring on this topic, see http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html ; it's a transparent allegory, but one I find quite compelling. > I really do wish I could think better of humanity. You're part of humanity. What are you, personally, doing to solve the problem? Blaming "political will" is one thing, but large-scale apathy is at least as big a roadblock to solving issues on that scale. The first step to solving a problem is to decide it needs solving. And deciding that it can't be solved makes it harder to solve.