5 ms·

Just yesterday there was an article on Hacker News attacking Bezos for having the pride and selfishness to attempt to cure aging: https://news.ycombinator.com/i

Just yesterday there was an article on Hacker News attacking Bezos for having the pride and selfishness to attempt to cure aging: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28440348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28440348 "Be fine with dying of old age or else you're a villain" is this weird, fundamental, Christian part of our common mythos/ethics/stories. The evil villain seeks immortality. The kindly old witch or wizard or Pope dies peacefully because it is right. Aging is bad. We might be able to fix it. There are a thousand downsides and challenges that come with a solution to old age, but that doesn't mean leaving aging in place is better.

pochekailov 5y ago
I never understood people who defend death If there is a tiger chasing you, wouldn't you try to escape or fight? Or just give up and let the tiger eat you? It is natural, tiger also want to eat, right?
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  If your mental image of people who support the notion of death is people who are just apathetically suicidal, then you're missing the point.
  - pochekailov 5y ago
    No, my point is that I personally am very afraid of death, and would fight death from the selfish reasons. People who support the notion of death seem not to constantly fear it themselves, but view it as something hypothetical, that they wouldn't have to face themselves in the near future (likely several decades).
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      I don't think I particular fear death. Fear of death is a monkey brain thing. I don't want to die because I enjoy living. But if I had the choice between dying immediately or living for a few more minutes while being pushed through a meat grinder, I think I, and everyone alive, would choose to die immediately. It's not too difficult to imagine torture and pain so horrific that even monkey brain prefers death. Human brain can make that judgment wherever it wants. I think the general case that shitty medical routes are just not worth it is often true.
  - dennis_jeeves 5y ago
    >If your mental image of people who support the notion of death is people who are just apathetically suicidal, then you're missing the point. It is indeed what I think of most people, what point have I missed?
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    They're not suicidal. But they have this big inconsistency in their ethical framework. I mean, if an elder gets into a car accident, shouldn't we try to save them? If a fire starts in a nursing home, shouldn't the residents be evacuated and the fire put down? How come that everyone understands the importance of saving lives, but some flip 180 degrees on it if the cause looks "natural" enough and the victim is old enough?
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > people who support the notion of death Isn't that a bit like supporting the notion that there is a sky above us? Perhaps you are referring to people who reject the notion that death is to be avoided in all circumstances, whatever the consequences.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
> There are a thousand downsides and challenges that come with a solution to old age, but that doesn't mean leaving aging in place is better. Sure, not by default, but on the merits of those downside, you probably should conclude that it is in fact better to have people age. Especially if it serves to only be available to the rich and powerful. That's just a shortcut to utter dystopia.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Should you? I think most people would think that a poor person under the rule of a despotic king is still better off alive than dead. So how come that, if the king were to live for hundreds of years, that poor person would suddenly be better off dead? I feel this line of reasoning boils down to, "if we can't have perfect equality, everyone should die".
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    You're assuming that the poor person gets immortality too. That's generous. Or even if they do, that they live in conditions that don't result in them dying from unnatural causes. Or just kill themselves because life is awful. Better 100 good years than 500 bad ones.
burlesona 5y ago
Why did you feel the need to slam this as “Christian?” There’s nothing in Christianity that speaks against medicine or trying to extend life. The only thing that is different for Christians is they believe death is not the final end, and thus have less reason to be afraid. They still don’t want to die. Would you be comfortable slamming other religions in the same causal way? If not, why not?
- eximius 5y ago
  Hacker News is US-centric. The US is Christian-centric (religiously and culturally). And there has been a truly bizarre push almost entirely among evangelicals recently to just accept mortality where its absolutely not needed (e.g., during the pandemic).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rdevsrex 5y ago
  Well, particularly early Christianity hero-worshipped martyrs, and seeing as how death brought about union with Christ, there is no tradition of prizing life in the body above death.
  - alentist 5y ago
    See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28475405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28475405.
mbg721 5y ago
There's a long tradition of wealthy people with various delusions of having the secrets to defeat death, from Steve Jobs to Howard Hughes and beyond. The Christian tradition scoffs at that because it always fails, and exposes the fragility of even massive earthly wealth, where the Christian priority would be to reject the riches of this world in order to build wealth in the next. That doesn't seem so weird to me.
alentist 5y ago
From its earliest days, following the edicts of Jesus, Christianity encouraged its devotees to tend the sick. Priests were often also physicians. According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey, while pagan religions seldom offered help to the infirm, the early Christians were willing to nurse the sick and take food to them, notably during the smallpox epidemic of AD 165-180 and the measles outbreak of around AD 250; "In nursing the sick and dying, regardless of religion, the Christians won friends and sympathisers".[6] Following the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, leading to an expansion of the provision of care. Among the earliest were those built ca. 370 by St. Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea Mazaca in Cappadocia in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), by Saint Fabiola in Rome ca. 390, and by the physician-priest Saint Sampson (d. 530) in Constantinople, Called the Basiliad, St. Basil's hospital resembled a city, and included housing for doctors and nurses and separate buildings for various classes of patients.[7] There was a separate section for lepers.[8] Eventually construction of a hospital in every cathedral town was begun. Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals after the end of the persecution of the early church.[9] Ancient church leaders like St. Benedict of Nursia (480-547) emphasized medicine as an aid to the provision of hospitality.[10] 12th century Roman Catholic orders like the Dominicans and Carmelites have long lived in religious communities that work for the care of the sick.[11] Some hospitals maintained libraries and training programs, and doctors compiled their medical and pharmacological studies in manuscripts. Thus in-patient medical care in the sense of what we today consider a hospital, was an invention driven by Christian mercy and Byzantine innovation.[12] Byzantine hospital staff included the Chief Physician (archiatroi), professional nurses (hypourgoi) and orderlies (hyperetai). By the twelfth century, Constantinople had two well-organized hospitals, staffed by doctors who were both male and female. Facilities included systematic treatment procedures and specialized wards for various diseases.[13] Medieval hospitals in Europe followed a similar pattern to the Byzantine. They were religious communities, with care provided by monks and nuns. (An old French term for hospital is hôtel-Dieu, "hostel of God.") Some were attached to monasteries; others were independent and had their own endowments, usually of property, which provided income for their support. Some hospitals were multi-functional while others were founded for specific purposes such as leper hospitals, or as refuges for the poor, or for pilgrims: not all cared for the sick. When and where the first hospital was established is a matter of dispute. According to some authorities (e.g. Ratzinger, p. 141), St. Zoticus built one at Constantinople during the reign of Constantine, but this has been denied (cf. Uhlhorn, I, 319). But that the Christians in the East had founded hospitals before Julian the Apostate came to the throne (361) is evident from the letter which that emperor sent to Arsacius, high-priest of Galatia, directing him to establish a xenodochium in each city to be supported out of the public revenues (Soxomen, V, 16). As he plainly declares, his motive was to rival the philanthropic work of the Christians who cared for the pagans as well as for their own. A splendid instance of this comprehensive charity is found in the work of St. Ephraem who, during the plague at Edessa (375), provided 300 beds for the sufferers. But the most famous foundation was that of St. Basil at Cæsarea in Cappadocia (369). This "Basilias", as it was called, took on the dimensions of a city with its regular streets, buildings for different classes of patients, dwellings for physicians and nurses, workshop and industrial schools. St. Gregory of Nazianzus was deeply impressed by the extent and efficiency of this institution which he calls "an easy ascent to heaven" and which he describes enthusiastically (Or. 39, "In laudem Basilii"; Or. fun. "In Basil.", P.G., XXXVI, 578-579). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nursing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nursing

pochekailov 5y ago

I never understood people who defend death If there is a tiger chasing you, wouldn't you try to escape or fight? Or just give up and let the tiger eat you? It is natural, tiger also want to eat, right?

spywaregorilla 5y ago
If your mental image of people who support the notion of death is people who are just apathetically suicidal, then you're missing the point.
- pochekailov 5y ago
  No, my point is that I personally am very afraid of death, and would fight death from the selfish reasons. People who support the notion of death seem not to constantly fear it themselves, but view it as something hypothetical, that they wouldn't have to face themselves in the near future (likely several decades).
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    I don't think I particular fear death. Fear of death is a monkey brain thing. I don't want to die because I enjoy living. But if I had the choice between dying immediately or living for a few more minutes while being pushed through a meat grinder, I think I, and everyone alive, would choose to die immediately. It's not too difficult to imagine torture and pain so horrific that even monkey brain prefers death. Human brain can make that judgment wherever it wants. I think the general case that shitty medical routes are just not worth it is often true.
- dennis_jeeves 5y ago
  >If your mental image of people who support the notion of death is people who are just apathetically suicidal, then you're missing the point. It is indeed what I think of most people, what point have I missed?
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  They're not suicidal. But they have this big inconsistency in their ethical framework. I mean, if an elder gets into a car accident, shouldn't we try to save them? If a fire starts in a nursing home, shouldn't the residents be evacuated and the fire put down? How come that everyone understands the importance of saving lives, but some flip 180 degrees on it if the cause looks "natural" enough and the victim is old enough?
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > people who support the notion of death Isn't that a bit like supporting the notion that there is a sky above us? Perhaps you are referring to people who reject the notion that death is to be avoided in all circumstances, whatever the consequences.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

> There are a thousand downsides and challenges that come with a solution to old age, but that doesn't mean leaving aging in place is better. Sure, not by default, but on the merits of those downside, you probably should conclude that it is in fact better to have people age. Especially if it serves to only be available to the rich and powerful. That's just a shortcut to utter dystopia.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
Should you? I think most people would think that a poor person under the rule of a despotic king is still better off alive than dead. So how come that, if the king were to live for hundreds of years, that poor person would suddenly be better off dead? I feel this line of reasoning boils down to, "if we can't have perfect equality, everyone should die".
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  You're assuming that the poor person gets immortality too. That's generous. Or even if they do, that they live in conditions that don't result in them dying from unnatural causes. Or just kill themselves because life is awful. Better 100 good years than 500 bad ones.

burlesona 5y ago

Why did you feel the need to slam this as “Christian?” There’s nothing in Christianity that speaks against medicine or trying to extend life. The only thing that is different for Christians is they believe death is not the final end, and thus have less reason to be afraid. They still don’t want to die. Would you be comfortable slamming other religions in the same causal way? If not, why not?

eximius 5y ago
Hacker News is US-centric. The US is Christian-centric (religiously and culturally). And there has been a truly bizarre push almost entirely among evangelicals recently to just accept mortality where its absolutely not needed (e.g., during the pandemic).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rdevsrex 5y ago
Well, particularly early Christianity hero-worshipped martyrs, and seeing as how death brought about union with Christ, there is no tradition of prizing life in the body above death.
- alentist 5y ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28475405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28475405.

mbg721 5y ago

There's a long tradition of wealthy people with various delusions of having the secrets to defeat death, from Steve Jobs to Howard Hughes and beyond. The Christian tradition scoffs at that because it always fails, and exposes the fragility of even massive earthly wealth, where the Christian priority would be to reject the riches of this world in order to build wealth in the next. That doesn't seem so weird to me.

alentist 5y ago

From its earliest days, following the edicts of Jesus, Christianity encouraged its devotees to tend the sick. Priests were often also physicians. According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey, while pagan religions seldom offered help to the infirm, the early Christians were willing to nurse the sick and take food to them, notably during the smallpox epidemic of AD 165-180 and the measles outbreak of around AD 250; "In nursing the sick and dying, regardless of religion, the Christians won friends and sympathisers".[6] Following the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, leading to an expansion of the provision of care. Among the earliest were those built ca. 370 by St. Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea Mazaca in Cappadocia in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), by Saint Fabiola in Rome ca. 390, and by the physician-priest Saint Sampson (d. 530) in Constantinople, Called the Basiliad, St. Basil's hospital resembled a city, and included housing for doctors and nurses and separate buildings for various classes of patients.[7] There was a separate section for lepers.[8] Eventually construction of a hospital in every cathedral town was begun. Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals after the end of the persecution of the early church.[9] Ancient church leaders like St. Benedict of Nursia (480-547) emphasized medicine as an aid to the provision of hospitality.[10] 12th century Roman Catholic orders like the Dominicans and Carmelites have long lived in religious communities that work for the care of the sick.[11] Some hospitals maintained libraries and training programs, and doctors compiled their medical and pharmacological studies in manuscripts. Thus in-patient medical care in the sense of what we today consider a hospital, was an invention driven by Christian mercy and Byzantine innovation.[12] Byzantine hospital staff included the Chief Physician (archiatroi), professional nurses (hypourgoi) and orderlies (hyperetai). By the twelfth century, Constantinople had two well-organized hospitals, staffed by doctors who were both male and female. Facilities included systematic treatment procedures and specialized wards for various diseases.[13] Medieval hospitals in Europe followed a similar pattern to the Byzantine. They were religious communities, with care provided by monks and nuns. (An old French term for hospital is hôtel-Dieu, "hostel of God.") Some were attached to monasteries; others were independent and had their own endowments, usually of property, which provided income for their support. Some hospitals were multi-functional while others were founded for specific purposes such as leper hospitals, or as refuges for the poor, or for pilgrims: not all cared for the sick. When and where the first hospital was established is a matter of dispute. According to some authorities (e.g. Ratzinger, p. 141), St. Zoticus built one at Constantinople during the reign of Constantine, but this has been denied (cf. Uhlhorn, I, 319). But that the Christians in the East had founded hospitals before Julian the Apostate came to the throne (361) is evident from the letter which that emperor sent to Arsacius, high-priest of Galatia, directing him to establish a xenodochium in each city to be supported out of the public revenues (Soxomen, V, 16). As he plainly declares, his motive was to rival the philanthropic work of the Christians who cared for the pagans as well as for their own. A splendid instance of this comprehensive charity is found in the work of St. Ephraem who, during the plague at Edessa (375), provided 300 beds for the sufferers. But the most famous foundation was that of St. Basil at Cæsarea in Cappadocia (369). This "Basilias", as it was called, took on the dimensions of a city with its regular streets, buildings for different classes of patients, dwellings for physicians and nurses, workshop and industrial schools. St. Gregory of Nazianzus was deeply impressed by the extent and efficiency of this institution which he calls "an easy ascent to heaven" and which he describes enthusiastically (Or. 39, "In laudem Basilii"; Or. fun. "In Basil.", P.G., XXXVI, 578-579). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nursing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nursing