4 ms·

I kind of did answer your original question, but to do so more directly: I enjoy making stuff. More time to make stuff would mean more enjoyment. Recently, I'v

by blep_ 4y ago

I kind of did answer your original question, but to do so more directly: I enjoy making stuff. More time to make stuff would mean more enjoyment. Recently, I've been experiencing burnout that interferes with my ability to do this. It will pass, with time. But it's easier to think about that the longer my life will be, because I would have lost a smaller proportion of my limited time to it. Repeat for any other thing that one might view as wasted time, and it adds up. The question you've turned this into in your last paragraph is a completely different one. I don't have any desire to outlive or not outlive any particular person. It's nice to have the company of people I like, but my sense of meaning, to the extent I have one, is unrelated to that. People move into and out of my life all the time for various reasons.

braingenious 4y ago
Ah I didn’t realize that you considered yourself to be a longevity enthusiast. When you said: > Maybe some of these people actually have a passion for pushing the envelope. That sounded to me like you were speculating about a group rather than stating your personal stance. Yes, my last paragraph is a distinct wording of the exact same question, though it is meant to cut more to the core of what I’m asking about. Are you aware that during an average lifetime, you’ll see quite a few people around you die, and the longer you live the more that will happen? I’ve done end-of-life care for quite a few cancer patients in their late eighties to around 100. Even the ones in relatively good shape often like to talk about the people they’ve lost, it’s a natural part of aging that can’t be abated by metformin or intermittent fasting. Ignoring it doesn’t abate it either. The older they are, the more people they’ve lost. Living to 130 sounds honestly terrible to me unless you don’t have anybody you care about losing, or you’ve got people you look forward to losing. The point of living to 130 is not “living long”, it’s “living longer than [everybody/average people/some specific group].”
- agent008t 4y ago
  But 'living to 130' is an option, not an obligation. You can always leave sooner if you want.
- blep_ 4y ago
  (You're talking to two different people and that quote wasn't from me. I would not go so far as to call myself an enthusiast, but I plan to use whatever life-extending things become available. IMO, nothing that currently exists is proven enough to bother with.) I am aware that people die, and that over a longer time span more people will die. I think the real philosophical difference here might be that there are no completely irreplaceable people in my life. There are people I like very much and will be very sad when they die. But there is nobody in the "life is literally not worth living without them around" category for me, and I don't expect there ever will be. I'll grieve, and then I'll continue. It has happened before, and it will happen many more times even within a normal human lifespan. I do not expect this applies to everyone. My sense of meaning, to the extent I have one, is probably somewhat less dependent on interpersonal relationships than most people's.

by blep_ 4y ago

braingenious 4y ago

Ah I didn’t realize that you considered yourself to be a longevity enthusiast. When you said: > Maybe some of these people actually have a passion for pushing the envelope. That sounded to me like you were speculating about a group rather than stating your personal stance. Yes, my last paragraph is a distinct wording of the exact same question, though it is meant to cut more to the core of what I’m asking about. Are you aware that during an average lifetime, you’ll see quite a few people around you die, and the longer you live the more that will happen? I’ve done end-of-life care for quite a few cancer patients in their late eighties to around 100. Even the ones in relatively good shape often like to talk about the people they’ve lost, it’s a natural part of aging that can’t be abated by metformin or intermittent fasting. Ignoring it doesn’t abate it either. The older they are, the more people they’ve lost. Living to 130 sounds honestly terrible to me unless you don’t have anybody you care about losing, or you’ve got people you look forward to losing. The point of living to 130 is not “living long”, it’s “living longer than [everybody/average people/some specific group].”

agent008t 4y ago
But 'living to 130' is an option, not an obligation. You can always leave sooner if you want.
blep_ 4y ago
(You're talking to two different people and that quote wasn't from me. I would not go so far as to call myself an enthusiast, but I plan to use whatever life-extending things become available. IMO, nothing that currently exists is proven enough to bother with.) I am aware that people die, and that over a longer time span more people will die. I think the real philosophical difference here might be that there are no completely irreplaceable people in my life. There are people I like very much and will be very sad when they die. But there is nobody in the "life is literally not worth living without them around" category for me, and I don't expect there ever will be. I'll grieve, and then I'll continue. It has happened before, and it will happen many more times even within a normal human lifespan. I do not expect this applies to everyone. My sense of meaning, to the extent I have one, is probably somewhat less dependent on interpersonal relationships than most people's.