5 ms·

If death is so noble and necessary, why should anyone have a problem with murder? Why should we bother trying to cure diseases? Do you think the world was twice

If death is so noble and necessary, why should anyone have a problem with murder? Why should we bother trying to cure diseases? Do you think the world was twice as dynamic and full of vitality 100 years ago, when the global average life expectancy was half what it is today? I don't think making people immortal would "prevent change" because there are plenty of kinds of change that don't involve ending a person's life without their consent. Is that not obvious?

meric 11y ago
Death happens, if not now then when entropy is at maximum, and birth happens too. Murder happens, and people angry at murders also happen. Diseases happen, and cures for diseases happen also. People go to work late happens, people go to work on time happens too. People fall in love and is rejected happens, and people fall in love and is reciprocated happens also. If you were to tell me what life is, that's life. That's vitality. You can have both left and right, good and bad, or nothing. There is duality, and then there is oneness, and you can't have one without the other. Life is duality, non-life is oneness. Maximum oneness is maximum entropy.
- kbenson 11y ago
  > If you were to tell me what life is, that's life. That boils down to "life is stuff happening", which is true, useless, and does nothing to answer the question posed. It is trivially obvious that it's impossible to stop all death, or even all human death, so I think it's also obvious that what's being talked about is not the elimination of death, but the elimination of the current main cause of death, which is aging.
  - meric 11y ago
    I was replying to MichaelGG's statement: 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. As I said before, Lengthening life span? That's a different matter. EDIT: Reply to below, that's a good explanation, thanks. I don't think I could come up with it so clear and succinct, if I could I would have!
    - kbenson 11y ago
      Yes, I was trying to address specifically that I think you are arguing a points with is somewhat orthogonal to the current discussion, because both are using similar terms to mean different things. Your terminology is more correct (you are addressing death as a specific concept, and it's inevitability), while they are addressing age extension, possibly to it's logical conclusion a the end of the universe, but using "death" to denote that, when it's obvious there are other causes of death that cannot be stopped. In other words, I think there is no real difference of opinion, just a difference in terms making it seem so. This appears to have been exacerbated slightly through your flowery description of your point, which I take to be: "Death of is impossible to stop in the end, and giving the false impression that it is may be harmful. That said, if we can retard it in humans to a large degree, that's useful. Additionally, death serves a useful purpose in many systems, so we shouldn't lose sight of this."
- meowface 11y ago
  That's the current unavoidable state, yes. What if diseases could all be prevented though? Is life no longer "life" if an all-cure is produced? >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. This argument never really re-assured me. I know it's most likely the case that that's what happens, but it brings me no peace of mind. The issue is not the state transition or the fear of "where I will be". My issue is the permanent loss of all potential future utility to oneself, to loved ones, and to the world at large. Before I was born, there was no concrete potential. After you are already alive, you are forever erasing proven potential. This is why it can be ethical to kill an early-stage zygote, but it isn't ethical to kill an infant. It is important to accept what is and isn't possible, but this discussion hypothesizes a world where what isn't possible can actually be possible. And in that world, I think biological immortality (no death by aging or disease) is far preferable to mortality. I think death is a powerful evil in this world, except in cases where someone chooses to die of their own free will.
scintill76 11y ago
I feel that you're strawmanning the original post by changing it from something like "death is necessary" to "death is good". Clearly there's a difference between a body becoming frail vs. somebody intentionally fatally injuring it. There's also a difference between stopping disease and stopping aging (well, at least if you define aging as not a disease, which I think is fair since AFAIK it has a different mechanism than disease.) > there are plenty of kinds of change that don't involve ending a person's life without their consent Is "without consent" another reference to murder, or just the fact that most people don't want to die? I assume the latter. How do you know that the kinds of change that do happen, aren't mostly because death as we know it exists and subtly influences all our decisions? Maybe there really would be less change without death.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  This is an interestingly twisted line of thinking. RE aging vs. disease, how the two are different? Aging looks exactly like a genetic disorder that slowly kills you, the only difference being that this is the single disease we all share. As for "death is good" vs. "death is necessary", I disagree and it looks to me that "necessary" comes out of trying to come to terms with the fact it's inevitable. You could argue in the past in the same way that diseases are necessary for various reasons, and yet we decided to cure them instead, invented antibiotics and hygiene and other medicine. > Clearly there's a difference between a body becoming frail vs. somebody intentionally fatally injuring it. Comparing to murder may not be the best. Try comparing to accidents. Both dying of old age and of an accident is unintentional. Yet as a society we accept the former while rejecting the latter. This is strange and IMO happens only because we know we can prevent accidents, but we don't know how to prevent aging. Yet. We'd already know if more people cared instead of delegating the problem to deities or thinking it's Good to die because it's the Natural Order of Things.
  - meric 11y ago
    We'd already know if more people cared instead of delegating the problem to deities or thinking it's Good to die because it's the Natural Order of Things. And it's socially acceptable for people to choose that. People ought to be allowed to delegate the problem to deities, and they ought to be allowed believe in a myth for death, and allowed to believe it's part of the natural order of things. We should never make it socially unacceptable.

meric 11y ago

Death happens, if not now then when entropy is at maximum, and birth happens too. Murder happens, and people angry at murders also happen. Diseases happen, and cures for diseases happen also. People go to work late happens, people go to work on time happens too. People fall in love and is rejected happens, and people fall in love and is reciprocated happens also. If you were to tell me what life is, that's life. That's vitality. You can have both left and right, good and bad, or nothing. There is duality, and then there is oneness, and you can't have one without the other. Life is duality, non-life is oneness. Maximum oneness is maximum entropy.

kbenson 11y ago
> If you were to tell me what life is, that's life. That boils down to "life is stuff happening", which is true, useless, and does nothing to answer the question posed. It is trivially obvious that it's impossible to stop all death, or even all human death, so I think it's also obvious that what's being talked about is not the elimination of death, but the elimination of the current main cause of death, which is aging.
- meric 11y ago
  I was replying to MichaelGG's statement: 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. As I said before, Lengthening life span? That's a different matter. EDIT: Reply to below, that's a good explanation, thanks. I don't think I could come up with it so clear and succinct, if I could I would have!
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Yes, I was trying to address specifically that I think you are arguing a points with is somewhat orthogonal to the current discussion, because both are using similar terms to mean different things. Your terminology is more correct (you are addressing death as a specific concept, and it's inevitability), while they are addressing age extension, possibly to it's logical conclusion a the end of the universe, but using "death" to denote that, when it's obvious there are other causes of death that cannot be stopped. In other words, I think there is no real difference of opinion, just a difference in terms making it seem so. This appears to have been exacerbated slightly through your flowery description of your point, which I take to be: "Death of is impossible to stop in the end, and giving the false impression that it is may be harmful. That said, if we can retard it in humans to a large degree, that's useful. Additionally, death serves a useful purpose in many systems, so we shouldn't lose sight of this."
meowface 11y ago
That's the current unavoidable state, yes. What if diseases could all be prevented though? Is life no longer "life" if an all-cure is produced? >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. This argument never really re-assured me. I know it's most likely the case that that's what happens, but it brings me no peace of mind. The issue is not the state transition or the fear of "where I will be". My issue is the permanent loss of all potential future utility to oneself, to loved ones, and to the world at large. Before I was born, there was no concrete potential. After you are already alive, you are forever erasing proven potential. This is why it can be ethical to kill an early-stage zygote, but it isn't ethical to kill an infant. It is important to accept what is and isn't possible, but this discussion hypothesizes a world where what isn't possible can actually be possible. And in that world, I think biological immortality (no death by aging or disease) is far preferable to mortality. I think death is a powerful evil in this world, except in cases where someone chooses to die of their own free will.

scintill76 11y ago

I feel that you're strawmanning the original post by changing it from something like "death is necessary" to "death is good". Clearly there's a difference between a body becoming frail vs. somebody intentionally fatally injuring it. There's also a difference between stopping disease and stopping aging (well, at least if you define aging as not a disease, which I think is fair since AFAIK it has a different mechanism than disease.) > there are plenty of kinds of change that don't involve ending a person's life without their consent Is "without consent" another reference to murder, or just the fact that most people don't want to die? I assume the latter. How do you know that the kinds of change that do happen, aren't mostly because death as we know it exists and subtly influences all our decisions? Maybe there really would be less change without death.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
This is an interestingly twisted line of thinking. RE aging vs. disease, how the two are different? Aging looks exactly like a genetic disorder that slowly kills you, the only difference being that this is the single disease we all share. As for "death is good" vs. "death is necessary", I disagree and it looks to me that "necessary" comes out of trying to come to terms with the fact it's inevitable. You could argue in the past in the same way that diseases are necessary for various reasons, and yet we decided to cure them instead, invented antibiotics and hygiene and other medicine. > Clearly there's a difference between a body becoming frail vs. somebody intentionally fatally injuring it. Comparing to murder may not be the best. Try comparing to accidents. Both dying of old age and of an accident is unintentional. Yet as a society we accept the former while rejecting the latter. This is strange and IMO happens only because we know we can prevent accidents, but we don't know how to prevent aging. Yet. We'd already know if more people cared instead of delegating the problem to deities or thinking it's Good to die because it's the Natural Order of Things.
- meric 11y ago
  We'd already know if more people cared instead of delegating the problem to deities or thinking it's Good to die because it's the Natural Order of Things. And it's socially acceptable for people to choose that. People ought to be allowed to delegate the problem to deities, and they ought to be allowed believe in a myth for death, and allowed to believe it's part of the natural order of things. We should never make it socially unacceptable.