We may not die

[Learner]

My greatest fear is to be unable to care for myself, to enjoy life. I prefer death.

What if physical and mental degeneration was eliminated? If you could retain the state and appearance of a healthy, vigorous 25yo indefinitely?

Well there is no 'death gene' (I think )and I'm sure scientists are trying ever so hard. As joedad has mentioned. Quite a few people do worry... about their dignity or the burdening to others being looked after. People having lived a good fair amount of years have said they have seen it all are tired now and are ready to go.

Living several hundred years would give them a different view of course if they were physically ever youthful.

 

[whichphilosophy]

One celled animals and plants live for ever as they keep splitting in two every so often to produce. If we developed that, we would become immortal (as our early ancestors were?).

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

And I like my memories and identity. I want to continue.

Isn't this what it all boils down to, ultimately? A selfish desire to go on indefinitely? The great thing about life is that we get to grow, reproduce, decay, and die, leaving the world to the next generation. As with evolution, death drives progress by eliminating previous generations and leaving the new generation to get on with things. But if we became immortal, progress of any kind will be gone. Not only because we won't be dying and leaving a material inheritance to our offspring, but because we'll still be there, hanging around and, with the wealth and power we didn't pass on, blocking progress or change becasue that's what we do - we get things our way and like it like that, and do our damnedest to stop anybody changing it. Imagine the generation that was in charge of things 100 years ago was still hangng around and pulling the strings; would we have made the progress, in terms of society for example, that we have, if they were around still calling the shots? I doubt it very much.

Not dying is a very nice dream for the indvidual, but for society, I think it would be a nightmare.

 

[ryan]

There is more to it than that, and it is all only philosophical at this point.

Of course there's more to it than that, but what I outlined is gist of it. As far as mind/personality/self identity/self awareness goes, the only continuity we have is provided by the collection of memories that define who we are and at what point we happen to be in.

How and if our present identities remain or don't remain is so incredibly complicated and requires a much more complete understanding of physics, biology, psychology, etc.

 

[ryan]

And I like my memories and identity. I want to continue.

Isn't this what it all boils down to, ultimately? A selfish desire to go on indefinitely? The great thing about life is that we get to grow, reproduce, decay, and die, leaving the world to the next generation. As with evolution, death drives progress by eliminating previous generations and leaving the new generation to get on with things. But if we became immortal, progress of any kind will be gone. Not only because we won't be dying and leaving a material inheritance to our offspring, but because we'll still be there, hanging around and, with the wealth and power we didn't pass on, blocking progress or change becasue that's what we do - we get things our way and like it like that, and do our damnedest to stop anybody changing it. Imagine the generation that was in charge of things 100 years ago was still hangng around and pulling the strings; would we have made the progress, in terms of society for example, that we have, if they were around still calling the shots? I doubt it very much.

Not dying is a very nice dream for the indvidual, but for society, I think it would be a nightmare.

Yes, you can look at it pessimistically like with anything. Or you could simply see it for what it really is. With death there is only the worst and most significant kind of loss. You don't lose as much when people survive.

 

[abaddon]

Isn't this what it all boils down to, ultimately? A selfish desire to go on indefinitely? The great thing about life is that we get to grow, reproduce, decay, and die, leaving the world to the next generation. As with evolution, death drives progress by eliminating previous generations and leaving the new generation to get on with things. But if we became immortal, progress of any kind will be gone. Not only because we won't be dying and leaving a material inheritance to our offspring, but because we'll still be there, hanging around and, with the wealth and power we didn't pass on, blocking progress or change becasue that's what we do - we get things our way and like it like that, and do our damnedest to stop anybody changing it. Imagine the generation that was in charge of things 100 years ago was still hangng around and pulling the strings; would we have made the progress, in terms of society for example, that we have, if they were around still calling the shots? I doubt it very much.

Not dying is a very nice dream for the indvidual, but for society, I think it would be a nightmare.

Yes, you can look at it pessimistically like with anything. Or you could simply see it for what it really is.

Yet another too-easy dismissive response, the thread's peppered with them from you.

It's always a surprise to me, but shouldn't be after all these years of dogmatists at a freethought board, that anyone is so dense they think their values-based perspective is "what it really is".

With death there is only the worst and most significant kind of loss.

That's your undemonstrated assertion, but solid arguments for why that's not true were presented and blithely dismissed by you.

You don't lose as much when people survive.

Say why you think so. I really don't know that the loss isn't compensated by gains when people die.

 

[ryan]

Yes, you can look at it pessimistically like with anything. Or you could simply see it for what it really is.

Yet another too-easy dismissive response, the thread's peppered with them from you.

It's always a surprise to me, but shouldn't be after all these years of dogmatists at a freethought board, that anyone is so dense they think their values-based perspective is "what it really is".

With death there is only the worst and most significant kind of loss.

That's your undemonstrated assertion, but solid arguments for why that's not true were presented and blithely dismissed by you.

I don't know what kind of world you live in, but the one I live in people are not willing to trade their loved ones for anything.

You don't lose as much when people survive.

Say why you think so. I really don't know that the loss isn't compensated by gains when people die.

When there is such a glaringly obvious and immediate benefit such as staying alive or keeping a loved one alive, the results that are simply too complex to foresee are usually left to chance. That's the way it has always been, and that's the way it always will be (or unless we get super computers that can simulate what the outcome of the universe will be for any given decision we want to make).

 

[ryan]

There must be something wrong when a person has to say this: I am sorry but I want medical advancements to accelerate so that people can live longer and be healthier.

Does this really seem like a bad thing?

Yes there are an infinite number of possible doom and gloom scenarios, but there are probably infinite number of advantageous scenarios. Sometimes we have to do what is obviously needed with a level of uncertain implications, or we will never get anything accomplished.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Yes, you can look at it pessimistically like with anything.

It's not about pessimism or optimism. It's about the practical aspects.

Or you could simply see it for what it really is.

I am. You're not, you're seeing it how you would like it to be.

With death there is only the worst and most significant kind of loss.

Now who's being pessimistic?

You don't lose as much when people survive.

You don't lose much when an individual dies, especially these days when anything important an individual contributes is preserved and maintained. What do you gain by having people live forever? It's one thing that lifespans are growing longer, but extending them indefinitely doesn't help anybody.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

There must be something wrong when a person has to say this: I am sorry but I want medical advancements to accelerate so that people can live longer and be healthier.

Living longer and healthier is certainly a good thing. But the thread title's not about that; it's about not dying. There's a huge difference.

 

[abaddon]

I don't know what kind of world you live in, but the one I live in people are not willing to trade their loved ones for anything.

"To trade".

Is it sophistry or just a head filled with cognitive distortions that makes you pick hyperbolic language over descriptive language?

 

[ryan]

It's not about pessimism or optimism. It's about the practical aspects.

Or you could simply see it for what it really is.

I am. You're not, you're seeing it how you would like it to be.

To see death of myself and loved ones any less devastating, I think, would be totally sociopathic or not human.

With death there is only the worst and most significant kind of loss.

Now who's being pessimistic?

That is what it has always been.

You don't lose as much when people survive.

You don't lose much when an individual dies, especially these days when anything important an individual contributes is preserved and maintained. What do you gain by having people live forever? It's one thing that lifespans are growing longer, but extending them indefinitely doesn't help anybody.

It's not necessarily about never dying. The technology would just allow people to live as long as they want to. When they have had enough, the loss won't exist because they won't see life as an asset anymore. And their loved ones would have to accept their decision if they don't want to be selfish.

 

[ryan]

There must be something wrong when a person has to say this: I am sorry but I want medical advancements to accelerate so that people can live longer and be healthier.

Living longer and healthier is certainly a good thing. But the thread title's not about that; it's about not dying. There's a huge difference.

The title can't include everything; it was meant as a response to the other thread "We're all gonna die.". In the OP, I have, "Health research is the ultimate answer: health, economy, morale, happiness, etc.".

 

[ryan]

I don't know what kind of world you live in, but the one I live in people are not willing to trade their loved ones for anything.

"To trade".

Is it sophistry or just a head filled with cognitive distortions that makes you pick hyperbolic language over descriptive language?

Uh oh, it has come down to this already?

 

[southernhybrid]

Before I invest the time trying to explain to you why this isn't going to happen, certainly not in our lifetimes, I do have a question for you.

Where are all these billions and billions of people going to live? On what planet? Where will the resources come from to provide for all of these people that will soon populate your utopia? There are many very educated, intelligent people that already feel the planet is over populated as it is. There are some important resources that are becoming more difficult to mine, and I'm not even talking about oil or natural gas. What about food? We are already losing birds and insects that are vital for pollination? I could go on and on but hopefully you get the idea.

Can you answer the question about how humanity will solve the vast social problems that would arise with a greatly expanded lifespan? I can tell you some other reasons why I am highly skeptical that living forever or even for a very extended time is likely impossible. I am a 67 year old professional nurse who has primarily cared for older adults for the past forty years. While it may be technically true that we don't die of old age, we do usually die of the diseases that come with old age, including loss of brain matter, organ failure and poor immune system. I can't even wrap my head around what it would take to eliminate these problems and I haven't even mentioned what happens to our most protective organ with age. I'm talking about skin. It loses elasticity, becomes thin, more prone to tears and bruises, sometimes it becomes so fragile that slight friction tears it.

I am sorry that you have such strong issues with death, but death is just a part of our life cycle. Most of the people I've watched die were more than ready to be relieved from their suffering. Death is often a relief from chronic suffering. And have you even considered severe trauma? Are you suggesting that there might be a way to repair our meat bodies after they receive numerous gunshots, a bomb, a plane accident, a terrible car crash, an attack by, let's say an alligator or a bear?

I'm sorry but this sounds too much like science fiction to me. I have some atheist friends that are big fans of science fiction and that sometimes seems to make them confuse science with science fiction. To me, this is similar to those who cling to religion in the hope that there is an after life. It can be very sad to lose a loved one, very sad indeed, but this is something that we all will face at some time. Life is full of both good times and bad. Tragedy is something that we all face from time to time. All we can do is try to get support from others when we need it.

I'm sorry that you are having difficulty accepting one of the more difficult realities of life. Here's how I try and look at it. I am fortunate to have had life when I think of the tremendous odds against it. I have had a pretty good life compared to most of the people before me and most of the people currently alive. I have already had a longer life expectancy than the majority of people that were born since the first humans inhabited the earth. To me, this is pretty awesome. I appreciate what I've had and have. It's fine to be optimistic but not without a healthy dose of realism.

 

[zorq]

Yikes. Can you imagine having all the people who were normal folks 200 years ago as neighbors today? They were all backwards racist bigots. What would the politics be like? I can barely stand the idiocy that seems standard from 60-80 year old folks today, and that's my parent's generation!

I love watching Comedy Central's Broad City but I can already see that I might turn into a similar curmudgeon in 30 years, whinging about how the young folks are doing it wrong... and I'll probably be wrong about it.

Young blood is good for society. Change is good. Death is always a tragic loss, but I believe it ultimately allows for a greater good in society, and likely, more happiness.

 

[ryan]

Where are all these billions and billions of people going to live? On what planet? Where will the resources come from to provide for all of these people that will soon populate your utopia? There are many very educated, intelligent people that already feel the planet is over populated as it is.

The universe may be infinite. If we use up all of the matter on people, then the problem solves itself.

There are some important resources that are becoming more difficult to mine, and I'm not even talking about oil or natural gas. What about food? We are already losing birds and insects that are vital for pollination? I could go on and on but hopefully you get the idea.

We are slowly becoming less and less dependent on other organisms. I mean we can actually live in space now for more than a year (the living conditions need to improve though).

Can you answer the question about how humanity will solve the vast social problems that would arise with a greatly expanded lifespan?

I see it getting rid of many social problems too.

I can tell you some other reasons why I am highly skeptical that living forever or even for a very extended time is likely impossible. I am a 67 year old professional nurse who has primarily cared for older adults for the past forty years. While it may be technically true that we don't die of old age, we do usually die of the diseases that come with old age, including loss of brain matter, organ failure and poor immune system. I can't even wrap my head around what it would take to eliminate these problems and I haven't even mentioned what happens to our most protective organ with age. I'm talking about skin. It loses elasticity, becomes thin, more prone to tears and bruises, sometimes it becomes so fragile that slight friction tears it.

There are many new kinds of ideas that are being worked on that can deal with this in the mean time: regenerative medicine, artificial organs, gene therapies, etc.

I am sorry that you have such strong issues with death, but death is just a part of our life cycle. Most of the people I've watched die were more than ready to be relieved from their suffering. Death is often a relief from chronic suffering. And have you even considered severe trauma? Are you suggesting that there might be a way to repair our meat bodies after they receive numerous gunshots, a bomb, a plane accident, a terrible car crash, an attack by, let's say an alligator or a bear?

There are measures that we can take until we have the ultimate technology 600 years from now (see the very bottom).

I'm sorry but this sounds too much like science fiction to me. I have some atheist friends that are big fans of science fiction and that sometimes seems to make them confuse science with science fiction. To me, this is similar to those who cling to religion in the hope that there is an after life. It can be very sad to lose a loved one, very sad indeed, but this is something that we all will face at some time. Life is full of both good times and bad. Tragedy is something that we all face from time to time. All we can do is try to get support from others when we need it.

Even science fiction eventually becomes a reality.

I'm sorry that you are having difficulty accepting one of the more difficult realities of life. Here's how I try and look at it. I am fortunate to have had life when I think of the tremendous odds against it.

I appreciate your sympathy - I do.

But should we accept terrorism as just a part of life too? We don't and we shouldn't. We don't accept diseases like cancer either and for one single reason - it leads to death.

I have had a pretty good life compared to most of the people before me and most of the people currently alive. I have already had a longer life expectancy than the majority of people that were born since the first humans inhabited the earth. To me, this is pretty awesome. I appreciate what I've had and have. It's fine to be optimistic but not without a healthy dose of realism.

I know it's not a reality right now; my goal is to help make this a reality.


The bottom line is that in 600 years, if Moore's law holds, we will have the computational power equivalent to the entire universe.

 

[zorq]

The bottom line is that in 600 years, if Moore's law holds, we will have the computational power equivalent to the entire universe.

Moore's law has been great for 60 years or so, but lately growth hasn't been as strong as it was before. It's been hitting some snags lately.

https://www.hpcwire.com/2015/11/20/top500/

Look at the inflection points in 2008 and 2012.
Growth is still technically exponential, but it's slowing down. Also cost per computer operation per year isn't dropping as fast as it use to either. Moore's law has never been a real "law" It's rather foolish to depend on it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

My greatest fear is to be unable to care for myself, to enjoy life. I prefer death.

What if physical and mental degeneration was eliminated? If you could retain the state and appearance of a healthy, vigorous 25yo indefinitely?

If I could download my brain, transfer the totality of my thoughts and experiences into an artificial body, I'd go for it. Life is a quality thing, otherwise you're just extending your death.

 

[DBT]

Of course there's more to it than that, but what I outlined is gist of it. As far as mind/personality/self identity/self awareness goes, the only continuity we have is provided by the collection of memories that define who we are and at what point we happen to be in.

How and if our present identities remain or don't remain is so incredibly complicated and requires a much more complete understanding of physics, biology, psychology, etc.

The details the mechanisms involved, yes, true, but that does not mean that we understand nothing. We know what the role of memory is. We know what the consequences of memory loss are. We know what the process of growth and decline into old age and ultimately death entails without a complete understanding of ''physics, biology, psychology, etc.''

It's not as if we understand nothing because we don't have complete understanding.