Facing Mortality

[Hygro]

Then who made Hell? Why does God not save his children from eternal torment? If it's because they rejected him, surely a merciful, loving, all-forgiving God would forgive them and set them straight?

If you read the Old Testament there's definitely existence before God, and humans before Man.

 

[Phrossack]

If you read the Old Testament there's definitely existence before God, and humans before Man.

Which section? I don't recall that at all.

 

[Berzerker]

first page of Genesis, before God arrives on the scene to commence with creation the world was dark and covered by water

on the 6th day humans were made and told to multiply, at some point afterward God takes a man Adam eastward to his Garden

 

[Kyriakos]

^another space alien? No surprise he is roughly as cruel as tezcatlipoca

 

[civvver]

Look, I'm just responding to what tetley said, I'm not arguing anything about the metaphysics of hell.

You guys need to watch event horizon.

Man so much can be learned just from watching sci fi movies and shows. All of life's lessons right there.

 

[Kyriakos]

I have to say, I could get on-board with the idea that God is but a mere baron in a vast universe of feudal duchies. It only created the Earth and his personal slice of ethereal heaven. Us heathens can't be serfs in its fields, but maybe another deity would take us in. The afterlife being a convoluted game of Crusader Kings 2 means I've got an advantage.

Give me Spice!

 

[El_Machinae]

Unless you eliminate death entirely there are always going to be deaths. I'm not sure we could ever cope with the side-effects of immortality. Cetainly we can't whilst we are confined to a single solar system (which is longterm enough for me to worry about).

Yes, there will always be death. That hardly strikes me as a reason to not combat it. There will always be the poor and the disadvantaged, too.
The majority of the problems you're describing exist regardless of whether or not we try to save people's lives.

I'm not opposed to medical research that will help more people live full and active lives, although that will drive average lifespan up, but actively seeking to extend lifespan seems perverse when we could be spending the money on helping people live more healthily over their existing lifespan, and extending that to the many in the worlds population who don't currently have the benefits we take for granted in the west seem like better priorities to me, both from a moral pov and in terms of the longterm stability and sustainability issues we face.

Your behaviour doesn't match your words. As I said, as soon as you spend one cent or one second improving your mom's life, you're spending resources that could be devoted to fixing the ills you're talking about.
The alternative is probably more true, that you think it's okay spending some resources helping your mom as long as you balance it with spending other resources fixing the ills you describe. You could even put a dollar value on it. Sum the dollars you spend to see her, or to hang out with her, or gifts, or whatevs. Sum the time as well, chatting on the phone. Agitating to protect Medicare, etc. And then you can compare it to the time and money you spend dealing with the other fundamental ills. Then you can see the ratio as to how much you actually care about either.

I'm also spending resources on my mom. I just do it in ways that could help your mom too. I am also working on the other ills you describe.

People also seem to worry about overpopulation. Now, I guess people use 'death' as a mechanism to slow overpopulation. But as long as births outnumber deaths, you've got that problem happening regardless. 350k people born each year. 125k die from aging or childhood poverty. Strikes me that 'wishing people die' to 'solve' the overpopulation problem is probably looking at the wrong part of the equation.

The problems you describe whether or not we battle aging. "A decade of decrepitude then death" shouldn't be in our solution set.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is the second issue, that I'm apparently the one to confront. This happens when people post about aging or when they post about Space Exploration. "What about the global conditions we're experiencing now???" is the criticism. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a useful critique. But why does it only happen here?

Someone posts about their vacation, which is basically 100% 'wasted' spending. Why not criticize that spending? Someone posts about their great weekend out, why not criticize that? Someone brags about seeing a movie on opening weekend. That seems to be money that could have been spent fixing the world rather than wrecking it. Etc. Etc. A nice pair of slacks. A nice set of shoes. Binge-watching a Netflix show. Boardgaming all weekend. A massive music collection. Playing games on their phone. All of these are wasted potential


For some reason, when someone posts about shaping an optimistic future, THOSE are the conversations that are confronted. As if the people who're concerned about aging, or infant mortality, or space exploration aren't cognizant of the fact that an unsustainable future ruins all of those goals.... It's frustrating.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's practically a meme on Reddit that anytime the Indian Space Research Organization lands on the front page, the subsequent conversation will be filled with people criticizing India for launching satellites while people their poop in the streets. There's a heaping helping of racism in those attacks but even putting that aside, the attacks are laughable given how much research India is doing (via ISRO) on climate change and lifting the standard of living for their people (again, via ISRO). They broadcast educational materials to remote villages and track weather systems for farmers using the same rockets and satellites their critics attack.

And while the Indians are particularly attacked on racist terms, the overall criticism that space programs are inherently useless and wasteful carries over to every country with one.

 

[Kyriakos]

@El_Machinae , the thing though is that you want undead people just so your own family will not die; eg your parents. If you actually viewed it in a non nepotist manner you could take comfort in the good possibility that 200 years from now humans may have many more decades of life on average.
It is ok to want stuff due to nepotism, but surely you can tell it isnt a more-noble-than-thou goal.

 

[Synobun]

I like the use of 'undead' there.

 

[El_Machinae]

@El_Machinae , the thing though is that you want undead people just so your own family will not die; eg your parents. If you actually viewed it in a non nepotist manner you could take comfort in the good possibility that 200 years from now humans may have many more decades of life on average.
It is ok to want stuff due to nepotism, but surely you can tell it isnt a more-noble-than-though goal.

I'm extrapolating my motive onto other people, because my efforts are synergistic with anyone else trying to help their parents (and yes, themselves, in the long run). If you've put your parents onto an ice floe, then I can see why you don't think my efforts are useful for your desires towards you own parents.

You too can lay out the spread of your spending. How much time and effort did you spend making your parents' lives better vs how much time and effort you spent helping the Bottom Billion. People care about their families. It's what we do. To assume otherwise is incorrect. To insist otherwise runs the risk of being a hypocrite.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm extrapolating my motive onto other people, because my efforts are synergistic with anyone else trying to help their parents (and yes, themselves, in the long run). If you've put your parents onto an ice floe, then I can see why you don't think my efforts are useful for your desires towards you own parents.

You too can lay out the spread of your spending. How much time and effort did you spend making your parents' lives better vs how much time and effort you spent helping the Bottom Billion. People care about their families. It's what we do. To assume otherwise is incorrect. To insist otherwise runs the risk of being a hypocrite.

You know, you have strong feelings on this, so lets agree to disagree.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yes, there will always be death. That hardly strikes me as a reason to not combat it. There will always be the poor and the disadvantaged, too.
The majority of the problems you're describing exist regardless of whether or not we try to save people's lives.


Your behaviour doesn't match your words. As I said, as soon as you spend one cent or one second improving your mom's life, you're spending resources that could be devoted to fixing the ills you're talking about.
The alternative is probably more true, that you think it's okay spending some resources helping your mom as long as you balance it with spending other resources fixing the ills you describe. You could even put a dollar value on it. Sum the dollars you spend to see her, or to hang out with her, or gifts, or whatevs. Sum the time as well, chatting on the phone. Agitating to protect Medicare, etc. And then you can compare it to the time and money you spend dealing with the other fundamental ills. Then you can see the ratio as to how much you actually care about either.

I'm also spending resources on my mom. I just do it in ways that could help your mom too. I am also working on the other ills you describe.

People also seem to worry about overpopulation. Now, I guess people use 'death' as a mechanism to slow overpopulation. But as long as births outnumber deaths, you've got that problem happening regardless. 350k people born each year. 125k die from aging or childhood poverty. Strikes me that 'wishing people die' to 'solve' the overpopulation problem is probably looking at the wrong part of the equation.

The problems you describe whether or not we battle aging. "A decade of decrepitude then death" shouldn't be in our solution set.

Extending lifespans means many people are now facing decades of decrepitude then death.
Its putting increasing pressure on our pensions and healthcare.
It mainly benefits those who live in rich countries and in those countries it mainly benefits the rich.
For the rest of us it means higher taxes, longer working lives and an insecure old age.

 

[El_Machinae]

Extending lifespans means many people are now facing decades of decrepitude then death.
Its putting increasing pressure on our pensions and healthcare.
It mainly benefits those who live in rich countries and in those countries it mainly benefits the rich.
For the rest of us it means higher taxes, longer working lives and an insecure old age.

Lifespan extension is a global phenomenon. Creating interventions that can undergo depreciation prevent the benefits from solely accruing to the wealthy. But yes, it can be screwed up, and we'll need solutions. Wanting people to die earlier than they need to shouldn't be in your acceptable list of solutions.

The extent of my pushback is (a) 'letting people die' isn't an acceptable solution to whatever problem you're describing. It's a failure of imagination.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Extending lifespans means many people are now facing decades of decrepitude then death.

Finding a way to avoid this is kind of the point of the discussion in his case. The idea is that age doesn't lead to decrepitude and death. I'm not sure to what extent that is even attainable, but it's a useful goal.

 

[Kaitzilla]

It is rather shocking that our hearts can pump blood for 8 decades.

Good quality mechanical pumps can't perform nearly that long.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is rather shocking that our hearts can pump blood for 8 decades.

Good quality mechanical pumps can't perform nearly that long.

They can with replaceable parts. The amazing technology of the human heart (actually the whole body) is the way new cells are integrated in as old cells die off and get removed, without any interruption in service.

 

[Berzerker]

^another space alien? No surprise he is roughly as cruel as tezcatlipoca

Aztec myth seems to be based on their cosmology, sons of the creator each had the chance to start everything in motion by leaping into the sun (or some celestial fire, I cant remember) but declined one by one out of fear. The last son jumped in and the sky turned (again?). Myths like that probably evolved into human sacrifice and blood letting rituals, the cosmos requires human blood to remain in motion.

The Mesopotamian Enuma Elish also describes a sequence of gods backing down from the task of creation, none would face Tiamat, the watery dragon. Marduk arrives on the scene late to slay Tiamat and make Heaven and Earth from her remains. Thats more evidence of an existence preceding the God of Genesis, Tiamat became tehom in Genesis - the dark, watery abyss - and she preceded Heaven, Earth (dry land), and God.

From what I understand the Aztecs waged wars in part to get POWs for sacrifice. Some people were treated like royalty for a period before being sacrificed, maybe they became the embodiment of the creator's son who jumped into the fire. There is an interesting ritual called the dance of the Voladores, 4 men climb up a tall tower and with ropes tied around an ankle they slowly descend to the ground as the platform rotates and the ropes unwind. A 5th (creator?) sits atop the pole playing a flute and drum.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I have to say, I could get on-board with the idea that God is but a meme

count me in.

For some reason, when someone posts about shaping an optimistic fut

sure, THOSE are the conversations that are confronted. As if the people who're concerned about aging, or infant mortality, or space exploration aren't cognizant of the fact that an unsustainable future ruins all of those goals.... It's frustrating.

maybe, just maybe, building a space project that allows human settlement on other planets is a bit, I mean a tad more ambitious and expensive than buying a new pair of shoes? and that huge sum of money could be used, for example, to clear our ocean of microplastic.

however I fundamentally agree with you here, it is not the utopians who should be critisized, it is the apathetic people, the ones that don't care or have given up..