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

181–190 of 347 posts

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#181

Post by rixarn »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #95
anonymous777 wrote: post #84

This whole thread reeks of death acceptance culture. HN readers show off how cool they are for accepting death instead of discussing how we as a tech community could help cure these diseases or at least give more people an option of being cryopreserved. The really unpleasant truth is that if we as a society began doing serious focused R&D on these life-threatening diseases earlier, the OP and many others wouldn't hav…

I appreciate your point, though I didn't read it this way. > The really unpleasant truth is that if we as a society began doing serious focused R&D on these life-threatening diseases earlier, the OP and many others wouldn't have to die. I absolutely agree with that and the fact that fighting death is so low on social priorities is something that boggles my mind. However even if we dropped everything and started worki…

I can accept the idea of prolonging one's life for a meaningful purpose. But, to think that we should aim for "curing dead"?

You talk about death as it is some kind of disease... Dead is part of life everywhere you look and not in the disease sense. There's a cyclic constant in all nature. You have seasons. You have day and night. Even stars that "live" for millions of years wither and "die" at some point. Why do you think we, as humanity, deserve to be the exception to that rule and escape a cyclic order that's been around like... forever?

Also, "life" feeds from "dead", no the other way around. It's not a coincidence that it's this way...

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#182

Post by wging »

msamwald wrote: post #67
flashman wrote: post #61

> Imagine you have a box of Lego, and you build a house, and you keep it. And you keep making new houses, and never breaking the old ones. What happens? "The box gets empty, Daddy." Good, yes. And can you make new houses then? "No, not really." So we're like a Lego houses, and when we die our pieces get broken up and put back in the box. We die, and new babies can be born. It is the wheel of life. I am stealing this.

It might be consoling to some, but it is hardly accurate.

It's an explanation of conservation of mass. Maybe not the only reason we die, but if no one ever did die, we'd eventually run into problems, er, assembling the next generation. In fact all you need to assume in order to run up against these problems is that population growth continues.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#183

Post by Neslit »

cr1895 wrote: post #179
Neslit wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>we would be better off if no one died

(Clarification: I think we'd obviously be better off if no one involuntarily died.)

I don't think I've been hasty in my thinking. What is the most central concern that you have about life as a good thing?

There are deep unsolved problems around long life. E.g., how do you grow as a mind that has existed for 4,000 years? A normal human mind would probably not be able to handle this, so we'd need some way to expand without losing the parts of ourselves that we value. Similarly, I don't know how to grow as a community of huge, ancient minds.

But, as the saying goes, those are very difficult problems, and I intend to work on solving them for as many centuries as it takes! Of course I can't literally claim to possess an absolute truth, but I think there is a very strong argument---or rather, I think most people would simply agree if they thought longer and more sanely about the question---that life can be awesome given some work, and it is precious, and we don't want to just give up on our vast adventure because, like, medicine is hard to figure out, or cryonics seems like something weird people do, or whatever.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#184

Post by sp332 »

jawilson2 wrote: post #133
bsandert wrote: post #16

From personal experience, I can very much relate to and agree with this piece. My father went through a similar process: cancer (melanoma) – two years of treatment and coming to terms with the facts – euthanasia. As a family, we have been very matter-of-fact about it, which was definitely something he encouraged and participated in. We frequently talked about all aspects of his disease, the future, how it affected hi…

Out of curiosity do you live in the US?

The twitter account in bsander's profile says Amsterdam.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#185

Post by Neslit »

wging wrote: post #182
msamwald wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be consoling to some, but it is hardly accurate.

It's an explanation of conservation of mass. Maybe not the only reason we die, but if no one ever did die, we'd eventually run into problems, er, assembling the next generation. In fact all you need to assume in order to run up against these problems is that population growth continues.

Uh, there's a whole lot of mass in the universe; this isn't really a limiting factor, and won't be for quite a long time.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#186

Post by sp332 »

wging wrote: post #182
msamwald wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be consoling to some, but it is hardly accurate.

It's an explanation of conservation of mass. Maybe not the only reason we die, but if no one ever did die, we'd eventually run into problems, er, assembling the next generation. In fact all you need to assume in order to run up against these problems is that population growth continues.

The earth's population has skyrocketed recently. Global poverty is down over the same time. There might be such a limit somewhere, but we're not close enough to it that we have to maintain an equilibrium in births and deaths!

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#189

Post by minionslave »

code4life wrote: post #174

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.

It sounds beautiful. I guess part of us wants to continue to exist, even after our death. I must point out, as much as I agree with the sentiment, many people give up a happy life on earth (forbidden food, no premarital sex, tithes etc..) for the sake of religion.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#190

Post by fasteo »

anonymous777 wrote: post #84

This whole thread reeks of death acceptance culture. HN readers show off how cool they are for accepting death instead of discussing how we as a tech community could help cure these diseases or at least give more people an option of being cryopreserved. The really unpleasant truth is that if we as a society began doing serious focused R&D on these life-threatening diseases earlier, the OP and many others wouldn't hav…

I find this anger against death weird.

We are alive because we are not death. Death is part of our lives and we should accept it without the drama, just like Peter is doing.

Post reply on HN