ting_bu_dong t1_iz074bf wrote
>In his book, The Case Against Death previous NYU philosophy professor, Ingemar Patrick Linden, veers away from the predominant philosophical notion that we should find ways to accept death as natural and inevitable and see it for what it is: 'simply awful.'
I'm with Ingemar Linden on this one. If something is a problem, "accept the problem" isn't a solution. Instead, you should try to find the root cause, and eliminate (or, at least mitigate) the problem.
Like this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._Sinclair
>He has expressed the view that advances in aging research could enable humans to live to be 200 years old.
Is he right? Will he succeed in moving towards that goal? Beats me. But he's not wrong for trying.
Anyway, the rest of the article seems to be just different ways to find ways to accept death as natural and inevitable. Which is solving a different problem: Not the problem of death itself, but the problem of dealing with death.
Solve the one and you (in large part) solve the other, too.
Scrybblyr t1_iz0hmt0 wrote
If you lived until 400, you would not have solved anything pertaining to death, just delayed it.100% of people would still die, so I mean kudos on the longevity and everything, but making lives longer doesn't actually address death.
MaxChaplin t1_iz0z7ex wrote
The longer you live, the more chance you have to undergo subsequent life extension procedures. Aubrey de Grey called it "longevity escape velocity".
Scrybblyr t1_iz13ima wrote
True. I have no issue with longevity or the study of it. I once checked the Internet for the people with the most longevity. It was the Japanese, but mostly with their diet from the 70's, vs what they eat now, which is somewhat Americanized. So I planned to start eating more fish and rice, but... I never really got around to it.
But your point is well taken, it is incredible what options are available now, and the advances that have been made.
VuurniacSquarewave t1_iz49f5k wrote
This opinion from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiroemon_Kimura always stuck with me: "He credited eating small portions of food (hara hachi bun me) as the key to a long and healthy life."
Scrybblyr t1_izbq8yx wrote
Oh yes, the restricted calories method. I don't think that's on the menu for me... I mean look how I worded that. :)
ting_bu_dong t1_iz0ta70 wrote
> or, at least mitigate
Did you guys all miss this part?
Edit: The point was that the goal should be to 1) acknowledge that death is the problem; and 2) from that, at least try to eliminate the problem. Even if that is not successful. You may be able to, at least, mitigate it.
But the main thing, the starting point, is to not fool yourself into the notion that it isn't a problem. The problem certainly isn't going to get fixed if it is simply excused.
Scrybblyr t1_iz12qqn wrote
But it doesn't mitigate it, even a fraction of a percent, it just delays it.
If some people see death as a problem to be dealt with (and eventually solved) then I have no issue taking advantage of whatever scientific breakthroughs they might come up with. If they can discover a way to stop our telomeres from fraying, I'll sign right up. But I view death as a necessary part of life. I don't buy into transhumanism, and it seems like this notion may come from that school of thought.
To be fair, as a Christian, I already believe in eternal life, so I have less riding on the notion of "solving" the problem of death than one might have if one believes the grave is the end of consciousness.
ting_bu_dong t1_iz14871 wrote
The fact that, eventually, you can't fix a machine anymore, and you have to deal with that, doesn't mean that you should neglect fixing the machine at all.
> I don't buy into transhumanism, and it seems like this notion may come from that school of thought.
>To be fair, as a Christian, I already believe in eternal life
Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?
Scrybblyr t1_iz14luk wrote
>The fact that, eventually, you can't fix a machine anymore, and you have to deal with that, doesn't mean that you should neglect fixing the machine at all.
Well good, then I'm glad I never even came close to suggesting that.
​
>Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?
No.
ting_bu_dong t1_iz14vri wrote
> Well good, then I'm glad I never even came close to suggesting that.
I'd think "acceptance" does, in fact, suggest that. "Eh, body's broken, what are ya gonna do?"
>>Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?
>No.
Well, I mean, if the goal is to live forever.
Scrybblyr t1_iz1ckne wrote
>Well good, then I'm glad I never even came close to suggesting that.
>
>I'd think "acceptance" does, in fact, suggest that. "Eh, body's broken, what are ya gonna do?
If you actually want to conflate "acknowleding that death is part of life" with "neglecting to fix the machine at all," that is certainly a choice you can make. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
​
>Isn't that just transhumanism with extra steps?
>
>No.
>
>Well, I mean, if the goal is to live forever.
The goal of transhumanism may be to live forever. The goal of Christianity is not to live forever. Christians believe that everyone does live forever, albeit not in the same place.
ting_bu_dong t1_iz1kswu wrote
>The goal of Christianity is not to live forever. Christians believe that everyone does live forever, albeit not in the same place.
The goal of a religion isn't to believe the beliefs of that religion? Well, alright.
Scrybblyr t1_iz2o82v wrote
>The goal of a religion isn't to believe the beliefs of that religion? Well, alright.
That isn't what I said. I said:
>The goal of Christianity is not to live forever. Christians believe that everyone does live forever, albeit not in the same place.
Funoichi t1_iz3h9on wrote
And yet Christians are obsessed with death to the extent of burying heads in sand. That’s the whole thing about atheism, it’s taking life cold turkey, no opiates involved to placate.
Atheists see christianity as a death cult, because if this life is of so little value, there’s no reason not to advance to the afterlife right away.
It’s a worldview exemplified by fear and one that devalues and renders our actual lives meaningless auditions.
Scrybblyr t1_iz4r7cc wrote
>And yet Christians are obsessed with death to the extent of burying heads in sand. That’s the whole thing about atheism, it’s taking life cold turkey, no opiates involved to placate.
Some have argued that atheism is the opiate for people who cannot bear the thought of a holy, omniscient, omnipresent God to whom they must one day give an account.
​
​
>Atheists see christianity as a death cult, because if this life is of so little value, there’s no reason not to advance to the afterlife right away.
I suppose some atheists may hold that view, if some atheists are ignorant enough about Christianity to think that it ascribes "little value" to life.
​
​
>It’s a worldview exemplified by fear and one that devalues and renders our actual lives meaningless auditions.
Spoken as if by someone utterly unaware of the worldview in question. Christianity holds life in very high regard indeed. Pro-life, one might say.
Since you seem kind of condescening and rude, vs someone interested in discussion, I will go ahead and block you at this point, as I am not interested in that kind of exchange. Peace.
quantic56d t1_iz0g367 wrote
You don’t. Even with life extension technology you can be killed at any time. It happens constantly around the world. Also the longer you live the greater your odds of dying in an accident. I’m a lot of fun at parties.
Provokateur t1_iz0pmkp wrote
Are you saying death should be eliminated?
That'd be nice, but there's no currently conceivable way that will ever happen. What you're suggesting is that people might live longer. But the difference between dying at 80 vs. dying at 200 is the same as the difference between dying at 40 vs. dying at 80. Death is still inevitable, and still needs to be coped with.
I feel like you either have a massive blindspot or you're just trying verbal gymnastics to trick yourself into an argument you know is wrong.
ting_bu_dong t1_iz0tq8r wrote
> Death is still inevitable, and still needs to be coped with.
Coped with? Sure, maybe. Accepted? No.
But: If there's a problem with with your car, for example, you can probably cope with it. But that's not the same as trying to fix it.
And saying that "well, eventually, all cars stop working" isn't an excuse to not fix it.
Coping with the machine being broken would be precisely the wrong thing to do.
The point is to always keep in mind that death is a problem.
[deleted] t1_iz1zo8o wrote
Is dying at 40 the same as dying at 80 though? We rightly view young death i.e. less continuous existence for the person in question as a "wrong" as it takes away the potential for experience.
Then consider death at 20000 years. Is that conceptually the same as dying at 20? Or would we find that over such lengths of time human experience becomes fundamentally different with people, for example, reaching terminal ennui and seeking out death as either an end or an adventure?
K1ngR00ster t1_iz19z6z wrote
The root problem of death is life. That conscious experience is what gives us suffering and the fear of death. You’d have to put an end to all potential life if you wanted to solve the problem.
Of course that’s not an option but neither is living forever. That’s why most philosophers teach to accept it as it is ultimately the course of the universe that decides our fate.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments