3 ms·

That's a lot of words, but I still don't see a justification why death (I.e. the end of life) is not a problem for people that do not want to stop living (most

That's a lot of words, but I still don't see a justification why death (I.e. the end of life) is not a problem for people that do not want to stop living (most people).

glenstein 5y ago
Yeah, I was confused as well. I think the argument is that it's a slippery slope to a different thing, and since the different thing is bad, solving for death is bad too. I don't think that runs.
- bsedlm 5y ago
  this is a very shallow reading of the point you correctly appreciate the structural way in which the argument works. but you still do not seem to want to see the underlying subltety; that death and life are merely parts of the same larger entity and that our language (our rationalist analytical way of thinking) makes us "miss the forest for the trees", to focus on life and death as opposing rival forces when in fact they're different edges(ends, or sides) of the same larger phenomenon.
  - glenstein 5y ago
    I think I fully understand this new subtlety and consciousness dismiss it as ridiculous. Two unlike things were being compared, and the underlying idea that life and death are complements (1) is so vague and open ended that it would take a lot of clarification to understand whatever you think it brings to bear here and (2) on account of its vagueness, functions as a pretty broad expression of a casual acceptance of death that invites all kinds of slippery slopes far worse than the one you are identifying. And since I'm on the side of thinking we can appeal to analytic concepts to distinguish between health problems that emerge in old age and "solving" childhood with horrific consequences, and you are on the side of seeing them as the same because those distinctions are trapped in strictures of analytic thinking, I imagine that you give your full blown acceptance a pandora's box of outrageous situations. Genocide? Eugenics? Letting global warming happen? Letting war happen? Nuclear bombs? All just the flip side of life, part of a greater dialectic that unites them, and ultimately all fine and good. Since you reject separating out good and bad cases according to any reading that would have structure, I trust that you embrace this slippery slope just as much as the one you want to attribute to the project of combating health issues in old age.
  - Dudeman112 5y ago
    There's probably an analogue argument for diseases and I'd still rather live in the universe where poliomyelitis was eradicated than one where it wasn't. Why it being part of a larger phenomenon would stop us from preferring to stay on one side of it?
    - glenstein 5y ago
      I would also say that we probably should reject the idea that there's a yin-yang give and take where one is the flip side of the other. So far as we can tell, most of the universe, heck most of earth just isn't alive; most things just live on the surface. In most of the universe things are just dead, and stay dead, and aren't part of any process of transformation where death transforms into life. If anything, the "process" of things dying can be part of a downward spiral of more death, and life can be part of an upward spiral that begets more life, and there's all kinds of pertinent details that separate those circumstances. Life probably started here by underwater volcanoes, and started feedback loops that bloomed more life, and on and on. Meanwhile, most places stay dead and don't become anything. It's just so frustrating to step into conversations about saving someone's life so they can live to see their great granddaughter's birthday and have someone say we shouldn't because they'd rather play games with metaphysics.
      - Dudeman112 5y ago
        I wholeheartedly agree. IMO it's rather annoying how the argument usually goes "well, there might be some bigger quasi-mythical reason for things being like that" but they just don't provide any good reason for betting on that metaphysics. They've decided it's how things should be and often will pull unknowable arguments for it.
vitiral 5y ago
The problem is always, and has always been, wanting things. Desire and our compulsive need to split the world into concepts that can be the aims of our desire. Not saying it's not a fun game, but if you take it too seriously you're bound to go crazy!
TheRealNGenius 5y ago
I think that Hollywood and other media have already indirectly addressed this. It's simply a matter of how far you are willing to go to achieve effective immortality. Vampire stories essentially gloss over this - you live forever at the cost of coming out into the sun, garlic, crosses, etc. That is to say, the way to become immortal is simply by becoming a vampire. There are exceptions of course, but these transformations are generally regarded as unfavorable, because you cease being human in lieu of becoming a monster. For me, once humanity achieves immortality, that is the inflection point. You are no longer human. You could argue whether one is human may come before or after that point. But for me, this is where I personally draw the line. Life saving implants, artificial limbs, illness curing/muscle enhancing/brain stimulating steroids, cybernetic/internet connected brain implants, AI merging singularity brain upload, you name it. It's not necessarily bad or good either way. But at some point, you cease to be human (by my definition anyway). And it just so happens that if you're effectively immortal, I consider that obviously inhuman.
slowhand09 5y ago
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/ In Time In a future where people stop aging at 25, but are engineered to live only one more year, having the means to buy your way out of the situation is a shot at immortal youth. Here, Will Salas finds himself accused of murder and on the run with a hostage - a connection that becomes an important part of the way against the system.

That's a lot of words, but I still don't see a justification why death (I.e. the end of life) is not a problem for people that do not want to stop living (most people).

glenstein 5y ago

Yeah, I was confused as well. I think the argument is that it's a slippery slope to a different thing, and since the different thing is bad, solving for death is bad too. I don't think that runs.

bsedlm 5y ago
this is a very shallow reading of the point you correctly appreciate the structural way in which the argument works. but you still do not seem to want to see the underlying subltety; that death and life are merely parts of the same larger entity and that our language (our rationalist analytical way of thinking) makes us "miss the forest for the trees", to focus on life and death as opposing rival forces when in fact they're different edges(ends, or sides) of the same larger phenomenon.
- glenstein 5y ago
  I think I fully understand this new subtlety and consciousness dismiss it as ridiculous. Two unlike things were being compared, and the underlying idea that life and death are complements (1) is so vague and open ended that it would take a lot of clarification to understand whatever you think it brings to bear here and (2) on account of its vagueness, functions as a pretty broad expression of a casual acceptance of death that invites all kinds of slippery slopes far worse than the one you are identifying. And since I'm on the side of thinking we can appeal to analytic concepts to distinguish between health problems that emerge in old age and "solving" childhood with horrific consequences, and you are on the side of seeing them as the same because those distinctions are trapped in strictures of analytic thinking, I imagine that you give your full blown acceptance a pandora's box of outrageous situations. Genocide? Eugenics? Letting global warming happen? Letting war happen? Nuclear bombs? All just the flip side of life, part of a greater dialectic that unites them, and ultimately all fine and good. Since you reject separating out good and bad cases according to any reading that would have structure, I trust that you embrace this slippery slope just as much as the one you want to attribute to the project of combating health issues in old age.
- Dudeman112 5y ago
  There's probably an analogue argument for diseases and I'd still rather live in the universe where poliomyelitis was eradicated than one where it wasn't. Why it being part of a larger phenomenon would stop us from preferring to stay on one side of it?
  - glenstein 5y ago
    I would also say that we probably should reject the idea that there's a yin-yang give and take where one is the flip side of the other. So far as we can tell, most of the universe, heck most of earth just isn't alive; most things just live on the surface. In most of the universe things are just dead, and stay dead, and aren't part of any process of transformation where death transforms into life. If anything, the "process" of things dying can be part of a downward spiral of more death, and life can be part of an upward spiral that begets more life, and there's all kinds of pertinent details that separate those circumstances. Life probably started here by underwater volcanoes, and started feedback loops that bloomed more life, and on and on. Meanwhile, most places stay dead and don't become anything. It's just so frustrating to step into conversations about saving someone's life so they can live to see their great granddaughter's birthday and have someone say we shouldn't because they'd rather play games with metaphysics.
    - Dudeman112 5y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree. IMO it's rather annoying how the argument usually goes "well, there might be some bigger quasi-mythical reason for things being like that" but they just don't provide any good reason for betting on that metaphysics. They've decided it's how things should be and often will pull unknowable arguments for it.

vitiral 5y ago

The problem is always, and has always been, wanting things. Desire and our compulsive need to split the world into concepts that can be the aims of our desire. Not saying it's not a fun game, but if you take it too seriously you're bound to go crazy!

TheRealNGenius 5y ago

I think that Hollywood and other media have already indirectly addressed this. It's simply a matter of how far you are willing to go to achieve effective immortality. Vampire stories essentially gloss over this - you live forever at the cost of coming out into the sun, garlic, crosses, etc. That is to say, the way to become immortal is simply by becoming a vampire. There are exceptions of course, but these transformations are generally regarded as unfavorable, because you cease being human in lieu of becoming a monster. For me, once humanity achieves immortality, that is the inflection point. You are no longer human. You could argue whether one is human may come before or after that point. But for me, this is where I personally draw the line. Life saving implants, artificial limbs, illness curing/muscle enhancing/brain stimulating steroids, cybernetic/internet connected brain implants, AI merging singularity brain upload, you name it. It's not necessarily bad or good either way. But at some point, you cease to be human (by my definition anyway). And it just so happens that if you're effectively immortal, I consider that obviously inhuman.

slowhand09 5y ago

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/ In Time In a future where people stop aging at 25, but are engineered to live only one more year, having the means to buy your way out of the situation is a shot at immortal youth. Here, Will Salas finds himself accused of murder and on the run with a hostage - a connection that becomes an important part of the way against the system.