5 ms·

Summary of pro death arguments, one of which I've seen in this thread (immortal tyrants.) Fairness Only rich people will get it. (No tech has ever done

Summary of pro death arguments, one of which I've seen in this thread (immortal tyrants.) Fairness Only rich people will get it. (No tech has ever done this.) Better to give money to the poor than science. (family, city, state, nation, has proven local investment beats foreign.) Bad for society Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.) Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew better than dead or nonexistent) Overpopulation (colonize the seas, solar system, or have a war.) Stop having kids Worse wars (nukes are more dangerous than having your first 220 year old person in 2136) Dictators never die (they die all the time and rarely of age) Old people are expensive (50% of your lifetime medical cost occur in your final year. Delay is profitable.) Old people suck. (death is an inferior cure to robustness.) Bad for individual You'll get bored. (your memory isn't that good, or your boredom isn't age related) You'll have to watch your loved ones die. (so you prefer they watch you?) You'll live forever in a terrible state. (longevity requires robustness.) Against gods will (not if he disallows suicide, then it is required.) People will force you to live forever (They already try to do that.) Do you think less people make progress faster? What's your target level of depriving life of existence? How do you plan to keep mankind robust from extinction events on a single planet? You might just need more people. What do you think our technology would look like if we had 10x less people for the last 100 years? More people make more progress faster. Aren’t you glad your parents didn't decide the world would be prettier or work better without you in it? If great minds like Einstein, Bell, Tesla, Da Vinci etc., were still alive and productive today, the world would be a better place. You're literally asking for others to die out of your fear. The burden should be higher. Have courage. If living longer comes with too many disadvantages, we'll know 100 years from now and decide then. Man up, save your family, save yourself. P.S. Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident, and if the parade of imaginary horrible things comes true, even earlier.

kosys 7y ago
Even suicide is God's will because free will is an illusion.
danieltillett 7y ago
Often wondered why deathism is so popular and I have come to conclusion it is a protective mechanism against disappointment. People really don’t want to age, but they don’t think anything can be done so they come up with all sorts of reasons it is good.
- memling 7y ago
  > Often wondered why deathism is so popular and I have come to conclusion it is a protective mechanism against disappointment. People really don’t want to age, but they don’t think anything can be done so they come up with all sorts of reasons it is good. One reason—not one I necessarily endorse, but a possibility—might be a conviction that people really aren't very good, deep down. Perhaps its cousin conviction that I'm not really all that good deep down. Put another way, it may be rooted not in a protective mechanism about disappointment as much as a persuasion about human nature.
- majkinetor 7y ago
  Not popular as much as natural. Without deathism, race could go extinct during famine. Opposite, during nice times, longer life has evolutionary benefit via mentoring, safety etc.
klim_bim 7y ago
Many people, including myself, choose to exist rather than not exist. It's very simple.
probably_wrong 7y ago
I'm sorry to be negative, but your argument seems to boil down to "because I say so". Max Planck (quoted above [1]) suggested death is necessary for the progress of science. Your counterargument seems to be... that I should kill myself? On a slightly unrelated note: making a blanket list of arguments you disagree with and then dismissing them all rarely leads (in my opinion) to a productive discussion. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19975834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19975834
- xvector 7y ago
  > Max Planck (quoted above [1]) suggested death is necessary for the progress of science. Appeal to authority at best. Rather than "I said so", you're pulling a "he said so" - not much better.
majkinetor 7y ago
Of course, you need to take into account that the more people do this, the probability of natural accidents are higher given that this would basically stop evolution/adaptation. So you will have to engineer a lot of other things to compensate. > Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident. So the problem is reduced to having a good body shield and few extra planets.
mat4magic 7y ago
Human Progress isnt defined by evolution anymore but by our Technology and Knowledge. There is no reason in an evolutionary sense to die anymore. But i think The biggest benefit would be the ability for a society to pursue long term projects because you will actually see the benefits even if it takes a 100 years.

kosys 7y ago

Even suicide is God's will because free will is an illusion.

danieltillett 7y ago

Often wondered why deathism is so popular and I have come to conclusion it is a protective mechanism against disappointment. People really don’t want to age, but they don’t think anything can be done so they come up with all sorts of reasons it is good.

memling 7y ago
> Often wondered why deathism is so popular and I have come to conclusion it is a protective mechanism against disappointment. People really don’t want to age, but they don’t think anything can be done so they come up with all sorts of reasons it is good. One reason—not one I necessarily endorse, but a possibility—might be a conviction that people really aren't very good, deep down. Perhaps its cousin conviction that I'm not really all that good deep down. Put another way, it may be rooted not in a protective mechanism about disappointment as much as a persuasion about human nature.
majkinetor 7y ago
Not popular as much as natural. Without deathism, race could go extinct during famine. Opposite, during nice times, longer life has evolutionary benefit via mentoring, safety etc.

klim_bim 7y ago

Many people, including myself, choose to exist rather than not exist. It's very simple.

probably_wrong 7y ago

I'm sorry to be negative, but your argument seems to boil down to "because I say so". Max Planck (quoted above [1]) suggested death is necessary for the progress of science. Your counterargument seems to be... that I should kill myself? On a slightly unrelated note: making a blanket list of arguments you disagree with and then dismissing them all rarely leads (in my opinion) to a productive discussion. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19975834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19975834

xvector 7y ago
> Max Planck (quoted above [1]) suggested death is necessary for the progress of science. Appeal to authority at best. Rather than "I said so", you're pulling a "he said so" - not much better.

majkinetor 7y ago

Of course, you need to take into account that the more people do this, the probability of natural accidents are higher given that this would basically stop evolution/adaptation. So you will have to engineer a lot of other things to compensate. > Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident. So the problem is reduced to having a good body shield and few extra planets.

mat4magic 7y ago

Human Progress isnt defined by evolution anymore but by our Technology and Knowledge. There is no reason in an evolutionary sense to die anymore. But i think The biggest benefit would be the ability for a society to pursue long term projects because you will actually see the benefits even if it takes a 100 years.