5 ms·
Interesting. I would like to attribute my desire to live "forever", at least to some extent, to cosmic perspective. One day the universe might make me bored,
by jsolson 9y ago
Interesting.
I would like to attribute my desire to live "forever", at least to some extent, to cosmic perspective.
One day the universe might make me bored, but today is not that day, and I suspect tomorrow isn't either.
I don't ever expect that day to come, but if I thought it was near I'd be very afraid indeed.
- fhayde 9y agoI think a good way to say it might be: I'm not afraid of death, I'm afraid of not existing.
- jsolson 9y agoYes, but given today's technology (and my lack of faith in a suitable deity), I do not have confidence in continuity after corporeal death.
- mikekchar 9y agoI do not fear non-existence. For most of the history of the universe, I did not exist. I have considerable experience with that. Dying appears to be unpleasant, though.
- unclebucknasty 9y agoWell, you existed. You just were not assembled in quite the same manner.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lozf 9y agoLike Lego; you build something and play a while... then all the pieces go back in the box 'til next time.
- latexr 9y agoIn the context of your existing self, non-existing before and after existing are quite different thoughts. The first one is like you don’t remember it, like you don’t remember a lot in your life that you know happened. With the second one you’ll never have the experience of feeling you don’t remember it and you know that. It’s akin to the difference between one day you realising you forgot most of your life, and you now discovering you have Alzheimer’s and will never again hold a moment in memory. To your present self the former is not scary, but the latter is. > For most of the history of the universe, I did not exist. I have considerable experience with that. On the contrary, you have zero experience with not existing because experience implies an impression was made, even if you don’t consciously realise it. Not existing has made (and will make) no difference to you whatsoever, and as such provides no experience, preparation, or comfort. It is the thought of not existing that makes a difference. It won’t by the time I don’t exist, but it does now. --- As a side note, if someone can recommend some good philosophy books on this, I’d appreciate it. I thought the branch that studies it might’ve been ontology, but I’ve read a bit of Sartre’s Being and Nothingness and realised what he’s talking about it not exactly what I’m looking for.
- jadbox 9y agoI have a lecture to recommend: Shelly Kagan on Death by Yale. It's amazing and probably the most important course for anyone willing to open up to ideas around the notion of self and existence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2J7wSuFRl8&list=PLEA18FAF1AD9047B0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2J7wSuFRl8&list=PLEA18FAF1A...
- matte_black 9y agoFor most of the universe’s history you did exist, but were dead, scattered into atoms all across space. The thing is, after a mere billions of years, you managed to consolidate into a form and became alive. Not a bad deal. But to be dead, is to wait a trillion years for something to happen, only for it to turn out at the end you have to wait a trillion years more, and then you have to continue this forever.
- cgriswald 9y agoAre we talking about atoms when we are talking about ourselves? I don't think so. I am not the same collection of atoms from moment to moment. There may not be an atom in my entire body that is original to my body; and there are vastly more atoms in my body now than then. When I say "me" I don't really mean my body or even my brain, even if that's where "me" is. We are really talking about our consciousness. It's been awhile since I read it, but ... In The Zen of Physics, David J. Darling argues that if some other collection of atoms has a consciousness like our own, that is no different than ourselves. (His idea of consciousness is something like patterns in the brain, which is distinct, if reliant, from a collection of atoms.) We would have no memory of our past experiences, but in a real sense we would be alive again. His arguments are a bit more elegant than I have presented here. And there is some question to whether an identical consciousness with different memories is really you or me, but it would mean that waiting for trillions of years isn't necessarily the case. This, of course, assumes that consciousness is an emergent phenomena. It is possible that consciousness is not emergent from brain processes, but is a fundamental property of the universe that the brain has somehow harnessed because it is an evolutionary advantage. (Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the Meaning of Life by Evan Harris Walker is a fun read on this idea.) In which case, in some form you would exist as long as the universe exists, and always have. As an aside, for those without consciousness (i.e. the dead and the unborn) time does not exist, so both "to wait" and "forever" are impossible. :)
- psyc 9y agoRegarding your first paragraph, I don't think that necessarily implies consciousness as an additional thing (not that consciousness doesn't require some explanation that is not forthcoming). You could be talking about a configuration of matter. Not an exact configuration, but one that would be recognizable to a powerful pattern matcher.
- Omnus 9y agoThis is a common sentiment that fails to take into account the fact that, once you DO exist, you have a desire to continue existing which you did not have prior to your existence.
- 52-6F-62 9y agoTime. Afraid of time. At least at this point in it.
- spullara 9y agoMy daughter, when she was 6, said it best. "I don't want to lose my sights."
- simonh 9y agoI would like to live indefinitely, but I do not want to. The cost to human society and our natural resources of a species of immortals is too much. I want human society to include births, children, growing up, dating, marriage and raising families. I want my children and our species generally to have a dynamic, continuously renewing culture. I just don’t see how those things are compatible with immortality. Just don’t see how I can weigh personal immortality against the lives of perhaps millions of people that could live in my place, choose myself over them and maintain any sort of moral credibility.
- whatshisface 9y agoIf you're immortal, then the "climb on a starship for 1000 years" deal starts looking a lot better. That would open up a lot of new resources to turn in to living people with lives to experience. (P.S. we're not anywhere near close to using our current resources completely or efficiently, so please stick around and help us get a little closer!)
- jcadam 9y agoYour starship would have to be something similar to Rama[1] for me to even consider it. A thousand years on anything similar to an upscaled contemporary spacecraft sounds like torture. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendezvous_with_Rama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendezvous_with_Rama
- justinclift 9y agoWell, there's the "suspended animation" possibility thing too. eg "Wake me up when we get there, or if anything interesting/important comes up on the way."
- latexr 9y agoNone of that precludes the case in which you’re the one immortal in existence, and you are immortal by chance and not choice[1]. And you could live in a way that has zero impact on the natural resources of the planet[2], or even a positive one. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_from_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_from_Earth [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Impact_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Impact_Man
- herbstein 9y agoVery well said. Really like the way you framed it.
- eloff 9y agoRight now the only thing that somewhat limits the accumulation of wealth by the wealthiest in our society is that they eventually die. Even if they pass it on to their offspring, those offspring are often ill-equipped to run their parent's business empire. Eventually the dynastic wealth fades away and others can take their place. If people could live forever there would be no limits on how much wealth individuals could concentrate in their hands. It would be like the meths in Altered Carbon. I don't want to live in a world where Jeff Bezos possesses more wealth than the bottom 90% of the planet. Our laws and economic system currently lead to extreme inequality. That would have to seriously change to allow for immortality.
- Omnus 9y agoSure, but you have to balance the potential bad with the fact that humans have an inborn drive to continue existing, and that death has profoundly negative effects that induce unnecessary suffering. If Jeff Bezos was your son and he was afflicted with a terminal disease, you'd have a very different outlook on his potential death, no matter what views you held at a high level societal perspective.
- 3pt14159 9y agoUltimately, we should just have a redistributive, progressive wealth tax with a basic income and optional state provision of staples like Healthcare. It's the only longterm stable system that sets incentives correctly. We should also completely ban negative things that cause feedback loops, like high net worth individuals subverting the political process via money. But if Steve Jobs clone 2.0 is 400 years old and still turning over his $200b at 10% per year, and 9% of that is getting redistributed while the average person is generating 1% then that's still ultimately better for humanity. The reason it needs to be a progressive wealth tax is to limit power accumulation.
- eloff 9y agoThat is part of the solution, but you're dreaming if you think you can tax people at 90% and expect them to continue to produce. I've packed up and relocated for less. I've also turned down work that I otherwise would have accepted, just because I know the government will take half. There would have been no Steve Jobs (at least not in the US) at 90% marginal tax rates.