9 ms·

> We all find our own solutions to the problem death poses. No! No body does this. People make up excuses. People spin death to be a positive, often under some

> We all find our own solutions to the problem death poses. No! No body does this. People make up excuses. People spin death to be a positive, often under some guise of Deep Wisdom. People come up with all sorts of ways to cope with death, but calling any of them a solution is just false. Death is a vile, atrocious thing, the biggest enemy humanity has. We don't say that slaves all found solutions to slavery. Or that everyone finds solutions to domestic abuse. Or solutions to dementia or Alzheimer's. Death is a far greater evil.[1] So how disgusting is it to say everyone finds a solution. I admit the author probably didn't intend to imply this, but it's exactly that kind of thinking that we should be aware of and fight. Just because it seems inevitable, we should not make it socially acceptable to give up and view death as anything but the wickedness it is. 1: Yes there are atrocities worse than death, but many of those involve death, or are worse because of the limited timespans caused by death. Apart from having your mind destroyed, I'm guessing most things would be healed by rather long periods of time, than sufferers would prefer a period of suffering+long OK life, vs suffering+death.

rntz 11y ago
No. Death is really not that bad; to be dead is no more evil than not to exist, because to be dead is to not exist. Dying itself is evil in that it causes grief to others still living; but while grief is painful, I do not think anyone would compare the evil of suffering grief to the evil of suffering slavery. One might argue that death is bad on counterfactual grounds: if a person had not died, they could still be alive and happy, and isn't that better than them not existing? But this argument leads to the Repugnant Conclusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox)! So be very careful if you take this line of argument that you understand what you are saying. I happen to be a total-happiness utilitarian, and do accept the repugnant conclusion. But ultimately all this means is that death is a mirror-image of birth - it ceases one hopefully-happy life; birth begins one. There is grief attached to death and joy attached to birth, but apart from that there is just as much imperative to maximize births as there is to prevent deaths - and one of these is far easier. This is, however, a deeply counterintuitive position that I don't expect many others to share. This isn't Deep Wisdom. It's just utilitarianism, taken seriously.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- meowface 11y ago
  If you can hypothetically prevent death and also increase birth rates (without causing problems resulting from overpopulation), wouldn't you be increasing both average and total happiness?
  - rntz 11y ago
    Sure. I'm not opposed to ending death, and certainly not to work on extending healthy lifespan. I just don't think it qualifies as humanity's greatest problem.
crgt 11y ago
Life is filled with suffering..death is an end to that. The end of suffering is a vile evil? I know this logic is common, but it always confuses me.
- sgift 11y ago
  "Life is filled with suffering" - and joy. Sure, if you only take one half of what life is then ending that miserable experience sounds like a perfect idea, but there's the other half too and that's the reason most people prefer life to death.
  - crgt 11y ago
    Is it really a 50/50 balance for you between joy and suffering? Do you think that's the case for most people? Also, my claim was a weak one - simply that death is not the most vile thing imaginable/humanity's greatest enemy, because, at the very least, it does represent an end to suffering. In fact, I believe suffering is our biggest enemy..
    - cousin_it 11y ago
      I agree that suffering is a bigger enemy than death. Unfortunately any viable technology for brain uploading would also allow bad actors to simulate huge amounts of suffering and conceal it from detection. I guess some technologies really are too scary to be released into the world, unless we can create a central benevolent overseer first.
    - meowface 11y ago
      What about "non-consensual death is the most vile thing"? Or maybe not "the most vile", but "an extremely vile thing". In this hypothetical new world, people may still choose to die if they will it. Also, presumably in this future world, most suffering will be greatly, greatly reduced through other advances.
- ASM_god 11y ago
  The Bible, which is the voice of God, tell us to actively seek out immortality, and to raise the dead, and to preserve vital information inside of us until the resurrection. The Bible tells us that God's ultimate goal is to defeat death, and that he has prepared us to defeat death for him. Our powers of reasoning are the tool God gave us to defeat death for him. The Bible tell us that the righteous will live forever on earth, but that the righteous will comprise only a small fraction of humanity. The righteous are those who 1) help to raise the dead; 2) preserve vital information inside themselves even while dead, until jesus returns; and 3) actively seek out immortality through deeds....those who sow immortality will reap it. God helps those who help themselves. More here: Do You Need To Freeze Your Head In Order To Be A Good Christian? http://churchofthebetterresurrection.blogspot.com/ http://churchofthebetterresurrection.blogspot.com/
meric 11y ago
A world without death is a world where flowers never change into fruit, a world where fruit never change into a new plant. Remember there's a theory of the universe ending in heat death, where entropy is maximum, where there is no more change possible. To prevent death is to prevent change, and you bring about a world, in the long term, becomes changeless, like a giant museum, flowers and fruit and plants stay in the same state and never age, caterpillars never turn into butterflies, where squid never mate and reproduce, everyone immersed in their VR, day after day, for eternity. Philosophically, what difference is that to the heat death of the universe then? The experience after death is exactly the same as the experience before birth. Was it a vile, atrocious thing you weren't born until you were? Death is about returning to that state. The disintegration of your mind is the mirror image of the creation of it. A world where you have left without right, top without bottom, beginning without end is like the universe before the big bang, or the universe after the heat death, where we, you, me, and everything else, is returned to being one. Lengthening life span? That's a different matter. But I can tell you, you will never stop death from happening. It's perfectly acceptable to accept death will happen, and more isn't always better. ;)
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Sorry if it wasn't clear I was referring to death of intelligent life. Heat death of the universe is definitely a problem but for a later time. I think having lifespans on the terms of millions of years or longer is qualitatively different than what we have now. I don't find the before-birth argument very compelling. I just don't see how it's relevant.
  - meric 11y ago
    You want society to view death as being wicked rather than acceptable. Since death is inevitable (either on millions of years or a decades scale), and it isn't that horrible of a state to return to anyway, viewing death as a kind of wickedness is like telling a Christian to accept he is going to hell, and make life miserable. I think it's important for people to be allowed to accept the inevitable, to accept they will return to a state that isn't that vile or wicked.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
imakesnowflakes 11y ago
>Death is a vile, atrocious thing, the biggest enemy humanity has. You have a time on this earth. When it is up, you make way for new generations. What is atrocious about it? What is atrocious and vile is the longing of some people for living indefinitely. We have a name for things that does not die and multiply uncontrollably. Cancer. Human beings are already cancerous in nature by their disregard/disrespect for everything that has been given by nature. Now you want to perpetuate that indefinitely by not dying? >Just because it seems inevitable, we should not make it socially acceptable to give up and view death as anything but the wickedness it is. Socially acceptable? Death? You put it as some kind of social custom that we obediently follow. >People spin death to be a positive, often under some guise of Deep Wisdom. Deep wisdom? How much wisdom do you need to see that the resources are limited? Human beings have no right to even want to live indefinitely until they have figured out how to live the limited time we got here without fighting and killing each other, how to live and expand without reckless destruction of nature/environment, how to expand life to other worlds, planets etc etc.
- Tideflat 11y ago
  Longer lives would help people be more sustainable because the problems of future generations would become problems of this generation.
  - imakesnowflakes 11y ago
    I have thought about this. How do people who are at the heads of large corporations okays destruction and pollution of environment. Is it because they don't care about the world their kids will inhabit? Or they just don't understand the seriousness and view it that way. If it is the former (which I really doubt), then longer lives can help. Or else, it will be just the same. A more realistic answer might be publically funded companies are answerable to the masses (people who buy shares), and the masses only care about the quarterly reports. And again, longer lives will not help much here. Because you buy a share for you to make a profit out of it. Even if the public is fully aware of the environmental issues, I am not sure people will take that into consideration while buying shares. Again, longer lives won't help us there.

rntz 11y ago

No. Death is really not that bad; to be dead is no more evil than not to exist, because to be dead is to not exist. Dying itself is evil in that it causes grief to others still living; but while grief is painful, I do not think anyone would compare the evil of suffering grief to the evil of suffering slavery. One might argue that death is bad on counterfactual grounds: if a person had not died, they could still be alive and happy, and isn't that better than them not existing? But this argument leads to the Repugnant Conclusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox)! So be very careful if you take this line of argument that you understand what you are saying. I happen to be a total-happiness utilitarian, and do accept the repugnant conclusion. But ultimately all this means is that death is a mirror-image of birth - it ceases one hopefully-happy life; birth begins one. There is grief attached to death and joy attached to birth, but apart from that there is just as much imperative to maximize births as there is to prevent deaths - and one of these is far easier. This is, however, a deeply counterintuitive position that I don't expect many others to share. This isn't Deep Wisdom. It's just utilitarianism, taken seriously.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
meowface 11y ago
If you can hypothetically prevent death and also increase birth rates (without causing problems resulting from overpopulation), wouldn't you be increasing both average and total happiness?
- rntz 11y ago
  Sure. I'm not opposed to ending death, and certainly not to work on extending healthy lifespan. I just don't think it qualifies as humanity's greatest problem.

crgt 11y ago

Life is filled with suffering..death is an end to that. The end of suffering is a vile evil? I know this logic is common, but it always confuses me.

sgift 11y ago
"Life is filled with suffering" - and joy. Sure, if you only take one half of what life is then ending that miserable experience sounds like a perfect idea, but there's the other half too and that's the reason most people prefer life to death.
- crgt 11y ago
  Is it really a 50/50 balance for you between joy and suffering? Do you think that's the case for most people? Also, my claim was a weak one - simply that death is not the most vile thing imaginable/humanity's greatest enemy, because, at the very least, it does represent an end to suffering. In fact, I believe suffering is our biggest enemy..
  - cousin_it 11y ago
    I agree that suffering is a bigger enemy than death. Unfortunately any viable technology for brain uploading would also allow bad actors to simulate huge amounts of suffering and conceal it from detection. I guess some technologies really are too scary to be released into the world, unless we can create a central benevolent overseer first.
  - meowface 11y ago
    What about "non-consensual death is the most vile thing"? Or maybe not "the most vile", but "an extremely vile thing". In this hypothetical new world, people may still choose to die if they will it. Also, presumably in this future world, most suffering will be greatly, greatly reduced through other advances.
ASM_god 11y ago
The Bible, which is the voice of God, tell us to actively seek out immortality, and to raise the dead, and to preserve vital information inside of us until the resurrection. The Bible tells us that God's ultimate goal is to defeat death, and that he has prepared us to defeat death for him. Our powers of reasoning are the tool God gave us to defeat death for him. The Bible tell us that the righteous will live forever on earth, but that the righteous will comprise only a small fraction of humanity. The righteous are those who 1) help to raise the dead; 2) preserve vital information inside themselves even while dead, until jesus returns; and 3) actively seek out immortality through deeds....those who sow immortality will reap it. God helps those who help themselves. More here: Do You Need To Freeze Your Head In Order To Be A Good Christian? http://churchofthebetterresurrection.blogspot.com/ http://churchofthebetterresurrection.blogspot.com/

meric 11y ago

A world without death is a world where flowers never change into fruit, a world where fruit never change into a new plant. Remember there's a theory of the universe ending in heat death, where entropy is maximum, where there is no more change possible. To prevent death is to prevent change, and you bring about a world, in the long term, becomes changeless, like a giant museum, flowers and fruit and plants stay in the same state and never age, caterpillars never turn into butterflies, where squid never mate and reproduce, everyone immersed in their VR, day after day, for eternity. Philosophically, what difference is that to the heat death of the universe then? The experience after death is exactly the same as the experience before birth. Was it a vile, atrocious thing you weren't born until you were? Death is about returning to that state. The disintegration of your mind is the mirror image of the creation of it. A world where you have left without right, top without bottom, beginning without end is like the universe before the big bang, or the universe after the heat death, where we, you, me, and everything else, is returned to being one. Lengthening life span? That's a different matter. But I can tell you, you will never stop death from happening. It's perfectly acceptable to accept death will happen, and more isn't always better. ;)

MichaelGG 11y ago
Sorry if it wasn't clear I was referring to death of intelligent life. Heat death of the universe is definitely a problem but for a later time. I think having lifespans on the terms of millions of years or longer is qualitatively different than what we have now. I don't find the before-birth argument very compelling. I just don't see how it's relevant.
- meric 11y ago
  You want society to view death as being wicked rather than acceptable. Since death is inevitable (either on millions of years or a decades scale), and it isn't that horrible of a state to return to anyway, viewing death as a kind of wickedness is like telling a Christian to accept he is going to hell, and make life miserable. I think it's important for people to be allowed to accept the inevitable, to accept they will return to a state that isn't that vile or wicked.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

imakesnowflakes 11y ago

>Death is a vile, atrocious thing, the biggest enemy humanity has. You have a time on this earth. When it is up, you make way for new generations. What is atrocious about it? What is atrocious and vile is the longing of some people for living indefinitely. We have a name for things that does not die and multiply uncontrollably. Cancer. Human beings are already cancerous in nature by their disregard/disrespect for everything that has been given by nature. Now you want to perpetuate that indefinitely by not dying? >Just because it seems inevitable, we should not make it socially acceptable to give up and view death as anything but the wickedness it is. Socially acceptable? Death? You put it as some kind of social custom that we obediently follow. >People spin death to be a positive, often under some guise of Deep Wisdom. Deep wisdom? How much wisdom do you need to see that the resources are limited? Human beings have no right to even want to live indefinitely until they have figured out how to live the limited time we got here without fighting and killing each other, how to live and expand without reckless destruction of nature/environment, how to expand life to other worlds, planets etc etc.

Tideflat 11y ago
Longer lives would help people be more sustainable because the problems of future generations would become problems of this generation.
- imakesnowflakes 11y ago
  I have thought about this. How do people who are at the heads of large corporations okays destruction and pollution of environment. Is it because they don't care about the world their kids will inhabit? Or they just don't understand the seriousness and view it that way. If it is the former (which I really doubt), then longer lives can help. Or else, it will be just the same. A more realistic answer might be publically funded companies are answerable to the masses (people who buy shares), and the masses only care about the quarterly reports. And again, longer lives will not help much here. Because you buy a share for you to make a profit out of it. Even if the public is fully aware of the environmental issues, I am not sure people will take that into consideration while buying shares. Again, longer lives won't help us there.