Facing Mortality

[El_Machinae]

Lol, naw, hobbs. Actually had nothing to do with your posts. I've had a small list of behaviours that I consider wasteful once they're compared to the grand challenges ahead. I cannot judge any individual's situation, and I won't. We're all a spread of selfishness and altruism.

Well, would a maimed person want to live for centuries, or get his limb back even for a few decades of lifespan?
Living forever may sound cool, but (oxymoron pending) seems shortsighted the way things are

We're talking a bit passed each other. If you want to help maimed people, I'm on your side. I've literally even participated in mentorship on this topic. There are other people spending their money much more wastefully that we could chastise. If there are other things you think will make the future worse, let's work on those too.

Here's the conversation.

"I work on Alzheimer's, and after it's defeated, I'll work on the next thing. Fun fact: my efforts will synergize with anyone else who doesn't like Alzheimer's"

"OMG! What??? Old people are terrible for the environment. And politics. And think about all the negative effects of helping old people!!!! Please spend your efforts working on MORE IMPORTANT THINGS"

"Would you prefer I work on malaria or on polio? I'm working on those too. I've a real fondness for it."

"OLD PEOPLE ARE TERRIBLE, WHY WOULD YOU WANT MORE??? THINK OF ALL THE TERRIBLE THINGS. Please stop spending effort on Alzheimer's."

.....................................................

The same people that will 'like' someone's massive burger on Facebook will confront me because I'm doing things that will risk the environment. The same person who 'likes' a too expensive pair of shoes on Facebook will confront me because I'm doing things that aggravates the wealth imbalance.

Please.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, if we had immortality tech now, hillary, trump, the bushes would be immortal. That by itself should be quite a counter-incentive

 

[AmazonQueen]

Lol, naw, hobbs. Actually had nothing to do with your posts. I've had a small list of behaviours that I consider wasteful once they're compared to the grand challenges ahead. I cannot judge any individual's situation, and I won't. We're all a spread of selfishness and altruism.



We're talking a bit passed each other. If you want to help maimed people, I'm on your side. I've literally even participated in mentorship on this topic. There are other people spending their money much more wastefully that we could chastise. If there are other things you think will make the future worse, let's work on those too.

Here's the conversation.

"I work on Alzheimer's, and after it's defeated, I'll work on the next thing. Fun fact: my efforts will synergize with anyone else who doesn't like Alzheimer's"

"OMG! What??? Old people are terrible for the environment. And politics. And think about all the negative effects of helping old people!!!! Please spend your efforts working on MORE IMPORTANT THINGS"

"Would you prefer I work on malaria or on polio? I'm working on those too. I've a real fondness for it."

"OLD PEOPLE ARE TERRIBLE, WHY WOULD YOU WANT MORE??? THINK OF ALL THE TERRIBLE THINGS. Please stop spending effort on Alzheimer's."

.....................................................

The same people that will 'like' someone's massive burger on Facebook will confront me because I'm doing things that will risk the environment. The same person who 'likes' a too expensive pair of shoes on Facebook will confront me because I'm doing things that aggravates the wealth imbalance.

Please.

I guess it gets me annoyed because there are many other things that we should be doing that we don't. Also that our policies aren't joined up. Politicians will bemoan the ageing crisis but not do anything about the air pollution or junk food that will cause so many health problems for people as they age. You still haven't convinced me that extending lifespan should be an important aim for us but anything that reduces suffering and helps people lead fuller, healthier lives for however long they live for is worth working on, and obviously that includes things like Alzheimers.

 

[El_Machinae]

You still haven't convinced me that extending lifespan should be an important aim for us

As I said, the amount I spend on space exploration (a proxy for our conversation here) is a fraction of what people will overspend on shoes. So, I'll spin the conversation back around. Why confront the person looking to extend lives? And if lengthening lifespans is undesirable, they is the opposite desirable? Are we coincidentally, today, at the proper level of lifespan? Or would you prefer I shift my efforts to shortening lifespans?

You're in a conundrum. If you don't think they're worth lengthening, and it's wrong to shorten, then what? What's the conclusion from that?
And if you spend any effort extending your mom's life, then what does that say? Implicitly?

It might be a syntax thing, but it seems like you might have some wiggle room in forgiving me because I've mentioned Alzheimer's a few times. It won't work. Unless I increase deaths from some other cause (heart attack, violence, whatevs) successful interventions in Alzheimer's will extend lifespans. The only insight I can bring to the conversation will be "after Alzheimer's, there will be something else."

But, again, if you're looking at social ills, I'm on your side.

 

[AmazonQueen]

As I said, the amount I spend on space exploration (a proxy for our conversation here) is a fraction of what people will overspend on shoes. So, I'll spin the conversation back around. Why confront the person looking to extend lives? And if lengthening lifespans is undesirable, they is the opposite desirable? Are we coincidentally, today, at the proper level of lifespan? Or would you prefer I shift my efforts to shortening lifespans?

You're in a conundrum. If you don't think they're worth lengthening, and it's wrong to shorten, then what? What's the conclusion from that?
And if you spend any effort extending your mom's life, then what does that say? Implicitly?

It might be a syntax thing, but it seems like you might have some wiggle room in forgiving me because I've mentioned Alzheimer's a few times. It won't work. Unless I increase deaths from some other cause (heart attack, violence, whatevs) successful interventions in Alzheimer's will extend lifespans. The only insight I can bring to the conversation will be "after Alzheimer's, there will be something else."

But, again, if you're looking at social ills, I'm on your side.

Yes, as will providing clean water or reducing infant mortality, but for me its a side effect, not an aim. The aim is reducing suffering and helping people live better lives.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

death is an elementary part of the cycle of life. that's not cognitive dissonance, it's an absolute fact. I know you all want to deny this, but humanity is actually part of something bigger. and it's not religion. whether we want it or not, we are part of this planet. we are actors in thousands of different overlapping ecosystems. those ecosystems function because there are mechanisms of control, for example for population size, and because everyone actively takes part. humans are one of the very few species that have utterly failed in their biological imperative and, instead of helping the world stick together, have done their best to make it hell for every species, themselves included. we are the architects of mass suffering and exploitation, of utter extinction and annihilation, of contamination. no one species has ever been this destructive, no one species has ever caused this much suffering, in the history of the entire world. we have embraced the extinction of one species and the slave labor of another species as "normal" parts of our daily lives. we've made it into jobs, entire industries even. we might be simultaneously the most successfull and the least successfull species depending on whether you take a strictily darwinian viewpoint, or whether you look at an (difficult to define) balance of the world (and her ecosystems).

in the animal world, some species reduce procreation levels and engage in homosexuality when their population gets too big. recently scientists have found a certain gene (or allele frequency) that is missing in more than 3/4s of all people who are adipose (grossly overweight). it seems that even from within there is a mechanism trying to stop us from developing the way we currently are developing. I'm sure this will give all the theists ITT a hard boner and will cause claims of a divine intent in DNA, however I am not sure what to make of it yet. might just be hereditary, or it might be epigenetic. I wonder how many of the so called "civilizational diseases" like depression tie into that.

This is way beyond my ability to comprehend. I can only say that your cognitive dissonance is complete, and that focusing on the good aspects of death (cessation of suffering, toil, equality of outcome, etc) is a way of ignoring the total annihilation that atheists believe in.

I will not resist death, but only because I believe God didn't mean us to.

What about a post-scarcity world? What about one ruled by a superintelligent, benevolent AI? That might include things like this?

Having kids as a 'lifestyle choice' really is selfish. Do it because you think it's God's (or Gnon's) plan. They'll be alright.

I have a really hard time taking you seriously. I'm sure Gnon transferred a decent amount of good boy points to your bank account for shilling him so vigorously on cfc!

 

[Kaitzilla]

1.5 billion chicken wings will get eaten today in US.

We have 4 sharp pointy teeth, and they taste too good.

 

[Mouthwash]

I have a really hard time taking you seriously. I'm sure Gnon transferred a decent amount of good boy points to your bank account for shilling him so vigorously on cfc!

This is a remarkable statement for someone who just did exactly that in his post.

(I don't like the idea of Gnon, but anything that helps nonreligious people behave more religiously is a good thing).

 

[Kyriakos]

@Kaitzilla I like to imagine the usa as a mountain-sized obese person continiously eating chicken wings and deep-fried mars bars. If you want a vision of the future think of a chicken wing falling in a human esophagus, forever!

 

[Kyriakos]

After the discovery of mass life extension it shouldnt take long for cyclopean walled cities to appear. The expendable and short-life plebs must be kept out somehow

 

[yung.carl.jung]

This is a remarkable statement for someone who just did exactly that in his post.

(I don't like the idea of Gnon, but anything that helps nonreligious people behave more religiously is a good thing).

I don't promote atheism nor theism, I don't know what you're on about. I've never been an atheist nor supported atheism.

 

[rah]

One glance in the mirror and it's obvious that the end is creeping closer.
Would I like to go back and do it all over again? Hell yes.
Not so much to do things differently, but just to experience it all again.

 

[tetley]

Not so much to do things differently, but just to experience it all again.

I view it like relocating (at least, in my head. not my heart). You miss all the people and things in the place you're leaving, because that is what you are far more familiar with. But at the same time you're excited about all the new things you will experience and people you will meet at the new place. I might miss this life, but I have a feeling that after I'm in Heaven--I will not miss this life. I will be more worried about the people I left behind.

 

[Kyriakos]

It isnt that unlikely that death is just the end. Still, it will be interesting to feel consciousness ending.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It isnt that unlikely that death is just the end. Still, it will be interesting to feel consciousness ending.

"It isn't that unlikely." Based on what? I see absolutely nothing to go on in this area other than plain wild speculation...other than God, of course, who apparently disagrees with your wild guess about the likelihood.

 

[Kyriakos]

"It isn't that unlikely." Based on what? I see absolutely nothing to go on in this area other than plain wild speculation...other than God, of course, who apparently disagrees with your wild guess about the likelihood.

Sure, i mean i am agnostic. That said there is plenty of reason to assume we dont know that much about life in the first place. So a definite stance would be in hyperbole, despite being easily presented as more rational.

Ps: i dont think a god has to exist for death not being the end. And i am not alluding to stories about meet-ups in heaven.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sure, i mean i am agnostic. That said there is plenty of reason to assume we dont know that much about life in the first place. So a definite stance would be in hyperbole, despite being easily presented as more rational.

Ps: i dont think a god has to exist for death not being the end. And i am not alluding to stories about meat-ups in heaven.

I'm always trying to point out that even an indefinite stance is usually hyperbole. Unless you are going outright with "well, god says..." then really the only position that isn't just wild ass speculation is the "well, I have no freakin' idea" position.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm always trying to point out that even an indefinite stance is usually hyperbole. Unless you are going outright with "well, god says..." then really the only position that isn't just wild ass speculation is the "well, I have no freakin' idea" position.

I dont have any idea

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I dont have any idea

That's rational.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

"It isn't that unlikely." Based on what?

Based on this

or the Dylan version, whatever you like