4 ms·

I really wish we had a way to keep legends alive longer and help them be happy, healthy, and contribute more to society.

dylan604 5y ago
Why does one have to be a legend for you to wish that for them?
- NL807 5y ago
  Because they are useful!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
davemp 5y ago
I think it’s kind of beautiful that we all have our limited times to make an impact. We bring our perspectives and use our context to try to move civilization to a more optimal place. Then once we’ve spent all our ideas our perspectives can afford, we give way to the next group of minds. Like an old oak falling under the weight of snow opens room in the canopy for new growth and the decomposing wood provides nutrients for saplings; the absence of old arguments invite new ideas and the theory we leave gives the building blocks.
- focus2020 5y ago
  This i fear. People who dont like the idea of immortal enforce others to be so. I am not saying the op is of this opinion, its my obsevation.
- igorkraw 5y ago
  I don't know if I'd call it beautiful or desirable over a world where we live forever and develop robust mechanisms to ensure our perspectives are forced to change and adapt instead of calcifying and power cannot entrench itself, but I agree that I can appreciate the fact that although people like Dr. Cox and Hans Rosling die, so do tyrants and those irrationally stubborn
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deltree7 5y ago
He lived till 98. At some age cut-off point, shouldn't we be thankful that he lived so long?. If you consider the first 25 as useless/building stage of life and the next 35 as contributing/productive part. This man lived another 38 years after that (an entire new useful life span for an average human).
- randmeerkat 5y ago
  > If you consider the first 25 as useless/building stage of life and the next 35 as contributing/productive part. I never thought I’d read a comment where someone just called their youth worthless. Aside from being reductionist and utterly devoid of empathy, there’s an entire industry built around life extension that disagrees with you.
  - drewzero1 5y ago
    Not to mention implying that people over 60 aren't contributing or productive.
  - deltree7 5y ago
    There are multiple philosophical points. For someone who lives/interacts with David Cox everyday, the loss is immense. But OP was referring to 'loss to the society'. When you bring in 'loss to the society', then it is inevitable that you measure their net-positive-contributions-to-society. Unless you are an outlier (<0.0001%), 25 and below is usually where you are sucking away resources without contributing back (easily measured by net worth or artifacts or offsprings). 25 - 60 is when you are peak contribution (offsprings, net worth, artifacts), after 60 most stop producing (offsprings, artifacts, wealth accumulation). Yes there are outliers to these too. Now to the controversial. Yes, offspring creation is (the ultimate) productive service to the society. It's the *only* way to keep humanity not going extinct. Thought experiment: Tomorrow if everyone decides to stop offsprings, humanity is guaranteed to be extinct in 100 years. However, if everyone decides to have a baby or two, humanity will chug along for at least quite a few hundred years (Climate Change is not going to make us extinct)
- kitd 5y ago
pixl97 5y ago
Only if we have a way to keep narcissistic terrors from using said method to prolong their awfulness.

dylan604 5y ago

Why does one have to be a legend for you to wish that for them?

NL807 5y ago
Because they are useful!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

davemp 5y ago

I think it’s kind of beautiful that we all have our limited times to make an impact. We bring our perspectives and use our context to try to move civilization to a more optimal place. Then once we’ve spent all our ideas our perspectives can afford, we give way to the next group of minds. Like an old oak falling under the weight of snow opens room in the canopy for new growth and the decomposing wood provides nutrients for saplings; the absence of old arguments invite new ideas and the theory we leave gives the building blocks.

focus2020 5y ago
This i fear. People who dont like the idea of immortal enforce others to be so. I am not saying the op is of this opinion, its my obsevation.
igorkraw 5y ago
I don't know if I'd call it beautiful or desirable over a world where we live forever and develop robust mechanisms to ensure our perspectives are forced to change and adapt instead of calcifying and power cannot entrench itself, but I agree that I can appreciate the fact that although people like Dr. Cox and Hans Rosling die, so do tyrants and those irrationally stubborn
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deltree7 5y ago

He lived till 98. At some age cut-off point, shouldn't we be thankful that he lived so long?. If you consider the first 25 as useless/building stage of life and the next 35 as contributing/productive part. This man lived another 38 years after that (an entire new useful life span for an average human).

randmeerkat 5y ago
> If you consider the first 25 as useless/building stage of life and the next 35 as contributing/productive part. I never thought I’d read a comment where someone just called their youth worthless. Aside from being reductionist and utterly devoid of empathy, there’s an entire industry built around life extension that disagrees with you.
- drewzero1 5y ago
  Not to mention implying that people over 60 aren't contributing or productive.
- deltree7 5y ago
  There are multiple philosophical points. For someone who lives/interacts with David Cox everyday, the loss is immense. But OP was referring to 'loss to the society'. When you bring in 'loss to the society', then it is inevitable that you measure their net-positive-contributions-to-society. Unless you are an outlier (<0.0001%), 25 and below is usually where you are sucking away resources without contributing back (easily measured by net worth or artifacts or offsprings). 25 - 60 is when you are peak contribution (offsprings, net worth, artifacts), after 60 most stop producing (offsprings, artifacts, wealth accumulation). Yes there are outliers to these too. Now to the controversial. Yes, offspring creation is (the ultimate) productive service to the society. It's the *only* way to keep humanity not going extinct. Thought experiment: Tomorrow if everyone decides to stop offsprings, humanity is guaranteed to be extinct in 100 years. However, if everyone decides to have a baby or two, humanity will chug along for at least quite a few hundred years (Climate Change is not going to make us extinct)
kitd 5y ago

pixl97 5y ago

Only if we have a way to keep narcissistic terrors from using said method to prolong their awfulness.