Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Protocol for Dying

hintjens.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 347 posts

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#171

Post by Neslit »

alsomaht wrote: post #168
asimuvPR wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you accurately explain death to a toddler? It is a good analogy that takes the toddler's feelings into account. Daddy ran out of Legos but he loves you. Quite beautiful actually.

Accurately: Our bodies undergo wear-and-tear, like the mailbox we had to fix last week. Only, in the case of our bodies, we don't yet have a way to fix or replace most of our parts. After a while, too many parts get worn down until they are no longer able to continue, and everything about us - the parts that allow us to think, the parts that allow us to feel - just stops. Sadly, fixing our biology is harder than fixi…

Ha :/ Too real.

> we're all screwed and you were born a few hundred years too early.

It's not a great option, but cryonics seems way better than nothing. (Under the assumptions that the preservation is reasonably high-quality, the storage facilities stay operational, humanity doesn't destroy itself, and advanced medical technology gets developed; see waitbutwhy.com/2016/03/cryonics.html )

An example of someone who wanted to live a long time but was genuinely screwed and was born a couple hundred years too early:

The rapid Progress true Science now makes, occasions my regretting sometimes that I was born so soon. It is impossible to imagine the Height to which may be carried, in a thousand years, the Power of Man over Matter. We may perhaps learn to deprive large Masses of their Gravity, and give them absolute Levity, for the sake of easy Transport. Agriculture may diminish its Labor and double its Produce; all Diseases may by sure means be prevented or cured, not excepting even that of Old Age, and our Lives lengthened at pleasure even beyond the antediluvian Standard. O that moral Science were in as fair a way of Improvement, that Men would cease to be Wolves to one another, and that human Beings would at length learn what they now improperly call Humanity! -Benjamin Franklin

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#172

Post by alanwatts »

aninhumer wrote: post #151
rangibaby wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Death is just another part of life. It's going to get you eventually. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori

Death is not a part of life, it is its destruction. That it is currently inevitable does not mean it doesn't suck, or that we shouldn't try to change that.

>Death is not a part of life, it is its destruction.

Life and death are part of the same simultaneous process. For a living thing to grow, it must die at the same time. Death is life's change agent.

"Controlled death of cells is as much a part of embryonal development as is cell proliferation and differentiation."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8801138

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#173

Post by slavik81 »

Neslit wrote: post #149
slavik81 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would be over a hundred billion people today if nobody ever died, and that's only counting the humans. The practical reality of the world since the dawn of life has been that if you want to shake up the genetic Lego box and create new creatures, the old creatures have to die. Eventually. The analogy is not perfect. To create new Lego creations you have to destroy the old ones first. But analogies are never perf…

Does this seem like a desirable state of affairs? I think I'd rather not have anyone die involuntarily. If we put our minds to it, I bet we could figure out how to not have anyone die who didn't want to. There's no physical law that says you can't have billions or trillions of humans live awesome lives for a very long time (though maybe not literally forever).

I think most people, including myself, would like to live forever. Whether achieving that is desirable or not is a larger discussion than I have time for, but I will say that if you take a broader perspective of the self, then death is not quite as sharp and painful as it first appears.

As Peter says, "[my children] will grow up with me in their DNA, on Youtube as endless conference talks, and in writing."

I think there are interesting ideas around seeing individuals as part of a greater whole. Not even in a spiritual sense, but just in a plain biological sense. It's rare to consider things that way, but it makes me feel better about my place in the world.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#174

Post by code4life »

Another perspective, adopted by millions is simpler, and more joyful to explain. This life is temporary, but a life with Christ in heaven is eternal. Our christian funerals are often celebrations about a journey on earth well fought.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#175

Post by pbcoronel »

aninhumer wrote: post #142
anexprogrammer wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you had an inconsolable five year old who lost a close relative or even pet? I prefer to use analogies and explanations they can understand and accept to help them understand the reality. It's not the same as presuming they have no concept of death. That's a very long way from shutting them down with lies, avoiding the topic, or "protecting" them from it. It's trying to be age-appropriate. I make no claims to be…

Obviously you try to explain, but what was objected to above is making excuses for death. Death sucks, and trying to pretend there's some good to balance that out is a lie. That said, I'm not a parent, and I realise it's easier to be idealistic in theory.

But there _is_ some good to balance death out, it's called life. And the lego analogy captures this idea perfectly and quite appropriately for a 5-year-old.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#176

Post by sneak »

wolfhumble wrote: post #63
Maarten88 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen orthodox religious people get into serious psychological problems after someone they loved died prematurely and unexpectedly. When you really believe that God has its hand in everything, death of a loved one is a hard thing to swallow: it must be some punishment or lesson, but why? Orthodox christian religion is i.m.o. not helpful at all when coping with death.

Christianity has never been about not suffering. Many early disciples had painful endings to their lives and went through many hardships. God was with them in their pain, not their ticket to a problem-free life, on their journey to heaven where "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more" [Revelation 21:4]. One women I know that was sick in cancer said it like this to a friend of mine: I…

Your god is good, powerful, and all-seeing: pick two.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#177

Post by Neslit »

alanwatts wrote: post #172
aninhumer wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Death is not a part of life, it is its destruction. That it is currently inevitable does not mean it doesn't suck, or that we shouldn't try to change that.

>Death is not a part of life, it is its destruction. Life and death are part of the same simultaneous process. For a living thing to grow, it must die at the same time. Death is life's change agent. "Controlled death of cells is as much a part of embryonal development as is cell proliferation and differentiation." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8801138

But, do you agree that the part where the whole human mind (not just some cells) has to die---a soul annihilated permanently---is not really a good thing, even if it happens to be the state we find nature in?

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#178

Post by BasDirks »

I have wanted to read up on ZeroMQ. This time I will. It is meaningless in the face of his situation, but I feel like this is how I, as a programmer, can "talk" to him, honor him. I'm not trying to be sentimental but it feels right.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#179

Post by cr1895 »

Neslit wrote: post #105
azazqadir wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, it doesn't have to be accurate. It just have to make sense to a child.

To put it bluntly, I can think of a number of other cases where (1) people say things to children because it is more pleasant or convenient, not because it is true, and (2) these misleading statements have negative effects later. In this case, it seems potentially worthwhile to keep in view that death is actually not a good thing, and that it would better if there weren't death, and that we want to keep an eye out fo…

I really don't think you can state as an absolute truth that death is bad and we would be better off if no one died. That may be your view, but this is a massively complex philosophical question for which I get the impression you have too hastily answered.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#180

Post by gerbilly »

It's wonderful to see someone approaching death with such a calm and balanced state of mind.

May your wisdom and compassion live on in your children and in all the other people you have influenced.

Post reply on HN