3 ms·
"We might be better off without death, but it's truly hard to say." Absolutely. We are simply actors in a complex environment; we have access to limited data p
by kwk 14y ago
"We might be better off without death, but it's truly hard to say."
Absolutely. We are simply actors in a complex environment; we have access to limited data points among an equation containing dizzyingly many variables. However, if none of us were to ever press forth for fear of uncertainty, we'd all recede into stasis and eventual extinction.
If you're worried about whether or not this planet contains enough resources to sustain an immortal populace indefinitely, which seems to be a common sentiment, that's a different issue entirely. For the record, it doesn't, but neither does it contain enough resources to sustain a mortal populace indefinitely.
"I've made one that is exactly parallel. ... pizza ..."
Also for the record, this isn't _exactly_ parallel. In your example, if I were to stop eating pizza, I would retain the potential to resume eating it at some later point. The point I was trying to make is that once you're dead, you're absolutely impotent, i.e., unable to effect any further change on reality. For the life of me (pun intended), I can't understand why anyone would be content to forfeit their potential.
- graeme 14y agoOops, you're right. I should have said "stop eating pizza forever, irrevocably" or "inject yourself with a virus that gives you a fatal allergy to pizza". Or, perhaps I should have picked a non-pizza argument. For a more serious exploration of the issue, you could read "The Immortal" by Jorge Luis Borges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Immortal_(short_story) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Immortal_(short_story) He was an Argentine short story writer famed for taking ideas to their logical conclusion. It's worth a read. The story only discusses an individual immortal in a society of mortals though, not a whole society made immortal.