4 ms·

These discussions can get a bit long, so I'll attempt (and fail) to keep it brief. > Science doesn't really tell us what happens to your consciousness after de

These discussions can get a bit long, so I'll attempt (and fail) to keep it brief. > Science doesn't really tell us what happens to your consciousness after death. Currently it doesn't really tell us that there's a consciousness of any sort afterwards. The concept of an afterlife might as well be a coping mechanism and the burden of proof should lie on those in favor of those claims. Maybe some day we'll have an answer. Until then, it's best to stick to what we know. What we know is that one's physical body shapes their mind or at least its expression a great deal, like the case of Phineas Gage and others. Similarly, even the casual descriptions of going under for surgery convey a sense of "lost time", just nothingness. If I have some sort of a "soul" then it will become more relevant once I'm dead. Until then, it makes sense to look after my body in whatever ways are possible, which includes things like eating well, getting enough sleep, not acting reckless or engaging in risk-taking behavior, limiting intake of harmful substances and so on. It also might include preserving my body around the time of death in case my brain activity can be restored later. > As to selfishness, why spend the $100k+ on having your body frozen rather than passing that along to your descendants? I will have no descendants. This is not a world where I'd want any, or worse yet, pursue parenthood due to selfish motivations or societal pressures. It's challenging to do it right and it is not for everyone. Props to the good parents out there, shame on the bad ones, or those who are not ready or qualified to be parents, yet choose that anyways. > Do you believe that there's something special about you and/or inadequate about other people that makes your greed over a chance at a few more years of life worth the money and time you are taking from them? Why is life about what will "do me much good"? Is that all you think your life is worth? It's just about accruing a bunch of stuff so that you can hopefully spend it on becoming immortal before your clock runs out? Nothing special at all, just self preservation - I experience life from my own perspective. I would like a continuation of that, within my means. I'm not stealing the last bite of food out of some descendant's mouth, merely using my own capital as I please, after the corresponding taxes have been paid and other investments made, charity donations done and so on. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to do, given how we typically get capital for our contributions to society in one way or another (hopefully that's the case). We don't tell people that they shouldn't buy nice clothes or cars for themselves because their future descendants could use the resources better, even knowing that those clothes will tatter and those cars will turn into heaps of rust. We don't tell people that they shouldn't buy medicine or medical procedures that might improve their health just because of them being a certain age, or more bluntly, we don't tell them that they should die so that the state and their descendants can take whatever inheritance there is. > Usually, they are also part of some weird cult, too, that convinces them that they can beat the odds. I think it probably boils down to simple maths: 0.01% is still better than 0%. Probably depends on how much you want to live. On the flip side, there are also those who say that a lifetime is more than enough and they're happy to have an end to a life well lived. > Death is ultimately a natural part of life, and I guess the unknown part of it is so terrifying that we spend so much of life futilely trying to prevent it. Unfortunately, infant mortality was also a natural part of life, until we took an effort to improve things. There's no reason why death or even deterioration at a late age couldn't be engineering problems to be solved. A world without Alzheimer's or cancer would be a better world, even if both of those are also natural. Imagine if you could preserve someone terminally ill or someone in need of an unavailable organ donation, until later. > I think it's a lot better to embrace the fact that you get about 100 years on this rock to advance the state of the world as much as you can before passing the job of being its steward onto the next generation. There is no reason why someone couldn't live with this assumption (regardless of whether they choose to have kids or not), while hoping for or investing in healthcare advancements, or even set aside some money for cryonics if they want, instead of buying more real estate or whatever. All in all, I don't expect to change any opinions, because mine is as alien to you as yours is to me. I don't appreciate that some of it reads condescending and so accusatory, though.

pclmulqdq 3y ago
Just to clarify a few things, I am happy with people spending money and time and energy on extending the human lifespan (and more importantly, the so-called "healthspan" where you can do useful work), and working on medical science to improve the human condition. However, I think the desire to beat death itself, and otherwise treat death as a curable disease, is separate from this, and is ultimately a very destructive ideology. Instead of seeing yourself as a temporary steward of the universe responsible for preserving it for future humans, immortality seekers see it as their own to exploit in the foolhardy quest to defy all of the current science on death and dying. Nothing beyond what you can experience in your lifespan matters, so you might as well go to the literal ends of the earth to pursue its extension. I'm not sure that's what you in particular think about this, but it is the natural consequence of a moral philosophy built around the idea of "0.01% is still better than 0%" and "I experience life from my own perspective. I would like a continuation of that." Any other belief about what you ought to do in the world is inconsistent with the division by 0 that you get from "0.01% is still better than 0%" I think that this is the reason why many billionaires have stopped doing things like building libraries and universities, and focus instead on funding increaslingly-quackish research into ways of cheating death. This ideology brings you blood boys and transfers of organs from the young to the otherwise-relatively-healthy old (done for money), as well as things like cryogenic freezing. > I think it probably boils down to simple maths: 0.01% is still better than 0%. The cultish belief in itself is that you actually have a chance greater than 0 of beating death, which isn't supported by any form of science. That idea is as much a religion as the idea that your "soul" lives on after you die. > I will have no descendants. Even with no descendants, you can still improve the human condition, and yes, people will remember you for it. I would encourage you to spend your money on things like building libraries and hospitals in Africa instead of beating death. Everything you have said here comes from a perspective of "self over all others," and I would encourage you to examine your own worldview, for your own sake. I'm not suggesting a religious conversion here, but think about what actually makes you happy. Many people who pursue money over all other things ultimately die unfulfilled and unhappy, wishing they could have done something else.
bemusedthrow75 3y ago
> If I have some sort of a "soul" then it will become more relevant once I'm dead. That is actually the central concept of religion. The soul you take to the afterlife is the soul you tended to in life. If you have some sort of a "soul" then they say it is at its most relevant now. Personally I don't believe, but the small risk of being perceived as an arsehole for all of my life, let alone all of eternity, is enough reason to work on not being an arsehole, and those are "soul" issues. All self-improvement stuff that isn't about wealth generation is.

pclmulqdq 3y ago

Just to clarify a few things, I am happy with people spending money and time and energy on extending the human lifespan (and more importantly, the so-called "healthspan" where you can do useful work), and working on medical science to improve the human condition. However, I think the desire to beat death itself, and otherwise treat death as a curable disease, is separate from this, and is ultimately a very destructive ideology. Instead of seeing yourself as a temporary steward of the universe responsible for preserving it for future humans, immortality seekers see it as their own to exploit in the foolhardy quest to defy all of the current science on death and dying. Nothing beyond what you can experience in your lifespan matters, so you might as well go to the literal ends of the earth to pursue its extension. I'm not sure that's what you in particular think about this, but it is the natural consequence of a moral philosophy built around the idea of "0.01% is still better than 0%" and "I experience life from my own perspective. I would like a continuation of that." Any other belief about what you ought to do in the world is inconsistent with the division by 0 that you get from "0.01% is still better than 0%" I think that this is the reason why many billionaires have stopped doing things like building libraries and universities, and focus instead on funding increaslingly-quackish research into ways of cheating death. This ideology brings you blood boys and transfers of organs from the young to the otherwise-relatively-healthy old (done for money), as well as things like cryogenic freezing. > I think it probably boils down to simple maths: 0.01% is still better than 0%. The cultish belief in itself is that you actually have a chance greater than 0 of beating death, which isn't supported by any form of science. That idea is as much a religion as the idea that your "soul" lives on after you die. > I will have no descendants. Even with no descendants, you can still improve the human condition, and yes, people will remember you for it. I would encourage you to spend your money on things like building libraries and hospitals in Africa instead of beating death. Everything you have said here comes from a perspective of "self over all others," and I would encourage you to examine your own worldview, for your own sake. I'm not suggesting a religious conversion here, but think about what actually makes you happy. Many people who pursue money over all other things ultimately die unfulfilled and unhappy, wishing they could have done something else.

bemusedthrow75 3y ago

> If I have some sort of a "soul" then it will become more relevant once I'm dead. That is actually the central concept of religion. The soul you take to the afterlife is the soul you tended to in life. If you have some sort of a "soul" then they say it is at its most relevant now. Personally I don't believe, but the small risk of being perceived as an arsehole for all of my life, let alone all of eternity, is enough reason to work on not being an arsehole, and those are "soul" issues. All self-improvement stuff that isn't about wealth generation is.