4 ms·

That's an interesting view, but I'm wondering about your response to some apparent consequences of that view. Would you say that you think society should stop

That's an interesting view, but I'm wondering about your response to some apparent consequences of that view. Would you say that you think society should stop using as much life-prolonging medicine as it currently does, so that people die earlier? That would help with overpopulation, and it's the corollary to your view that society shouldn't make new life-prolonging medicines. Or do you think the current medicines are fine, but we shouldn't make any more? If so, then what makes the current level of medicine so special and desirable, compared to medicine a little stronger or weaker? Aren't you on your own "ego trip" by letting yourself keep living? After all, aren't you part of the problem of overpopulation? Shouldn't you kill yourself, and make the earth that much better? Or is your view that you living is a necessary sacrifice, because you can hopefully convince many people to have less children or kill themselves, and it will be worth it overall? Or would you say that people who have already been born should keep living, but people who have not been born yet should be prevented from living, by encouraging people to have fewer children? If so, what's so special about the people who are already living compared to the people not yet living?

orthecreedence 14y ago
You bring up some excellent and thoughtful points. I'll try to respond to most of them. I think that resources spent in the goal of prolonging life are wasted resources. For instance, if you run a country that has two years of usable oil left, do you spend all of your time and resources searching for more oil, knowing full-well that it will run out again, or do you devote your resources to finding another source of energy? I believe that spending time and resources prolonging human life is time that could be spent fixing other problems we have. Cancer comes to mind. You're basically asking me what's the point of life. My answer would have to be two-fold (although it's probably more of a spectrum). From a biological standpoint, it's to reproduce and spread my DNA. From a personal standpoint, my goal in life is to be happy without harming others. A somewhat selfish goal, yes, but one I think I share with many other people. Killing myself would be a drop in the bucket as far as humanity is concerned, and if stopping overpopulation were my ultimate goal, I would do a lot better by using the life I was given to change the world thusly by convincing people to have less children. I don't believe new life shouldn't be created, but rather life would a lot better for everybody if there were an equilibrium between production and consumption. As far as medicine is concerned, I think it has already gone too far. My grandfather is/was a great example. He had an aneurysm in his late 60s. He was rushed to the hospital and "saved," but over the course of 6 years, slowly degraded into a bag of mush. He would have moments of lucidity where he knew he was completely demented and understood the gravity of the fact that he was losing his mind, but most of the time he was a vegetable. His last years were spent in confusing agony. If you asked me, he really died the day he had his aneurysm. I know of many others that have shared this same fate. Should we throw away what medical science has done in the last 100 years? No, I don't think so. Some people are just destined to be vegetables before they die. My point is that this world is getting smaller and smaller. We're starting to realize that our resources are limited. It is in humanity's best interest to not spend resources prolonging life, but instead use those resources for making life better for the ones who are alive.
- D_Alex 14y ago
  Your thinking - IMO - is affected by your experience with your grandfather, and I can understand that. But consider that for many people, myself included, the thought of dying in the future is a burden (not THAT big, in my case, but it's there) that we carry with us for a large part of our lives. On top of that there is the thought of our parents, spouses etc dying before us. I think that sucks more than the chance of life prolonging medicine going wrong. You know, VERY few people actually want to die even when they are debilitated by old age. I don't want to have to die, and I don't want other people to have to die either. I would be delighted to spend as long as it takes solving the overpopulation problem once the problem of dying is dealt with.

orthecreedence 14y ago

You bring up some excellent and thoughtful points. I'll try to respond to most of them. I think that resources spent in the goal of prolonging life are wasted resources. For instance, if you run a country that has two years of usable oil left, do you spend all of your time and resources searching for more oil, knowing full-well that it will run out again, or do you devote your resources to finding another source of energy? I believe that spending time and resources prolonging human life is time that could be spent fixing other problems we have. Cancer comes to mind. You're basically asking me what's the point of life. My answer would have to be two-fold (although it's probably more of a spectrum). From a biological standpoint, it's to reproduce and spread my DNA. From a personal standpoint, my goal in life is to be happy without harming others. A somewhat selfish goal, yes, but one I think I share with many other people. Killing myself would be a drop in the bucket as far as humanity is concerned, and if stopping overpopulation were my ultimate goal, I would do a lot better by using the life I was given to change the world thusly by convincing people to have less children. I don't believe new life shouldn't be created, but rather life would a lot better for everybody if there were an equilibrium between production and consumption. As far as medicine is concerned, I think it has already gone too far. My grandfather is/was a great example. He had an aneurysm in his late 60s. He was rushed to the hospital and "saved," but over the course of 6 years, slowly degraded into a bag of mush. He would have moments of lucidity where he knew he was completely demented and understood the gravity of the fact that he was losing his mind, but most of the time he was a vegetable. His last years were spent in confusing agony. If you asked me, he really died the day he had his aneurysm. I know of many others that have shared this same fate. Should we throw away what medical science has done in the last 100 years? No, I don't think so. Some people are just destined to be vegetables before they die. My point is that this world is getting smaller and smaller. We're starting to realize that our resources are limited. It is in humanity's best interest to not spend resources prolonging life, but instead use those resources for making life better for the ones who are alive.

D_Alex 14y ago
Your thinking - IMO - is affected by your experience with your grandfather, and I can understand that. But consider that for many people, myself included, the thought of dying in the future is a burden (not THAT big, in my case, but it's there) that we carry with us for a large part of our lives. On top of that there is the thought of our parents, spouses etc dying before us. I think that sucks more than the chance of life prolonging medicine going wrong. You know, VERY few people actually want to die even when they are debilitated by old age. I don't want to have to die, and I don't want other people to have to die either. I would be delighted to spend as long as it takes solving the overpopulation problem once the problem of dying is dealt with.