3 ms·
NAH, I’ve had this conversation 100 times I just tell people it’s completely optional and move along. Several years ago I suggested we ban immorality debates
by melling 2y ago
NAH, I’ve had this conversation 100 times
I just tell people it’s completely optional and move along.
Several years ago I suggested we ban immorality debates on HN
https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-be-banned-from-hacker-news-immortality/ https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/stories-that-should-...
- FreelanceX 2y agoMaking it optional doesn't solve the issue since it means those who choose to consume resources eternally at the expense of others are rewarded. In the meantime, those who choose to do the "right thing" (dying a natural death) would be punished: indeed, dying in a world where others live forever seems far more painful than dying where nobody has a choice.
- melling 2y agoYeah, I expect a lot of people who think dying “gives life meaning” will change their minds.
- lackoftactics 2y agoYou make some excellent points about focusing on the scientific aspects. However, I don't think we should discourage intellectual philosophical debates, as many of us here are genuinely interested in philosophy. These discussions provide a valuable counterbalance to purely technical conversations. By the way, the study mentioning 15,000 steps is already outdated. Recent research suggests that even 10,000 steps may not be necessary for health benefits.
- melling 2y agoHave at it. Everyone should debate it once, maybe twice. The universe is a big place. I look forward to exploring it with my immortality. Hundred years to the nearest star?