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

211–220 of 347 posts

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#211

Post by emodendroket »

Neslit wrote: post #162
emodendroket wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think it is extremely unlikely people will figure out thousand-year lifespans. I suppose perhaps we could somehow colonize other planets but I don't see any progress or even interest in progress there right now. As for cryogenics, check this out: http://thebaffler.com/salvos/everybody-freeze-pein

>Yes, I think it is extremely unlikely people will figure out thousand-year lifespans. Why? Do you think this would withstand a thousand years of human ingenuity? I'm confused where you're getting this very confident prediction. It also still seems to me that long lifespans are extremely desirable, albeit difficult to obtain, and I'm not sure whether you agree. This is relevant because if we want to decide e.g. where…

I can't know what anyone's motivations are, but I can feel pretty confident that they are selling false hope based on bogus science.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#212

Post by emodendroket »

tomp wrote: post #71
nemo1618 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm hesitant to answer for nikolay, but my guess is that he has indeed made such choices -- one of them being to live according to the doctrines prescribed by his religion. Rigidly adhering to dogma is something that many people take pride in. When done consciously, it's not blind obedience; it's a sort of trust in the groundwork that has been laid by your ancestors. In other words, to simply "pick and choose" would…

> In other words, to simply "pick and choose" would denigrate the tradition that nikolay has decided to uphold. I guess what I'm missing here, is how does one come to such a decision. After all, the "tradition" is just an arbitrary set of rules that was made up by someone sometime in the past. I mean, even the name "Eastern Orthodox Christian" reveals that it's a refinement of Christianity, which is itself a refineme…

I don't think Orthodox Christians see their traditions as "an arbitrary set of rules made up by someone" so much as a way of living prescribed by God himself through his emissaries on Earth (well, at least I'd figure many of them do hold this view).

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#213

Post by simplify »

minionslave wrote: post #189
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.

In Christianity, religion alone (the act of doing things, force of the will, restraint, etc.) is worthless, even condemned. It's about God changing your heart to love Jesus, such that your love and joy for Him overpowers any past love for sinful things.

It's kind of like romantic love here on earth. When you're single, you might really enjoy going out and meeting people (bars, meetups, events, etc.), but once you find and marry "the one", your enjoyment for such things is nothing compared to your love for your new spouse.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#214

Post by throwaway324324 »

bsandert wrote: post #201
jawilson2 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity do you live in the US?

I am from the Netherlands. Euthanasia is legal here, although strictly regulated (as I think it should be by the way, this is not the sort of choice that should be taken or approved lightly by anyone involved). Several doctors had to sign off on it, and they were thorough in making sure that this was his decision alone and that nobody around him was "pushing" him into it. Fortunately (if you can call it that), his me…

For those wondering what the typical regulations consist of, I found the following article doing a quick google search:

>> In all jurisdictions, the request for euthanasia or pas has to be voluntary, well-considered, informed, and persistent over time. The requesting person must provide explicit written consent and must be competent at the time the request is made. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/

This is fairly comprehensive, which is reassuring. However, the article goes on to say:

>> Despite those safeguards, more than 500 people in the Netherlands are euthanized involuntarily every year. In 2005, a total of 2410 deaths by euthanasia or pas [physician assisted suicide] were reported, representing 1.7% of all deaths in the Netherlands. More than 560 people (0.4% of all deaths) were administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent. For every 5 people euthanized, 1 is euthanized without having given explicit consent.

Just because regulations are strict, does not mean that they are strictly followed, or enforced.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#215

Post by emodendroket »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #104
tomp wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other words, to simply "pick and choose" would denigrate the tradition that nikolay has decided to uphold. I guess what I'm missing here, is how does one come to such a decision. After all, the "tradition" is just an arbitrary set of rules that was made up by someone sometime in the past. I mean, even the name "Eastern Orthodox Christian" reveals that it's a refinement of Christianity, which is itself a refineme…

There's no such thing as "faith" as separate to "knowing something is true". Many people who even call themselves religious miss that. If you really believe that the doctrines of your faith are God's prescriptions (and there are ways to make that as a logical inference of some basic axioms within the system of a religion), then it's not "arbitrary set of rules" - it's the set of rules God wants you to follow. That's…

Well, do they "not understand it" or do they just have a different way of being religious?

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#216

Post by cname »

emodendroket wrote: post #137
TeMPOraL wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's called being a responsible parent. It's either that, or your child's future partner will have to deal with them losing faith in their parents, after so many things they were told turned out to be bullshit said to shut them up.

If you'd resent your parents for explaining death to you when you were five by an analogy without technical accuracy you probably have other issues.

Right. Issues that were caused by people distorting the truth instead of giving it to you straight.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#217

Post by cname »

code4life wrote: post #202
cpburns2009 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A happy life and religion are not mutually exclusive. Oh the horror of controlling your impulses and donating a little bit of money.

Many people throughout history realize that a happy life only comes from knowing God, who is the source of joy. For instance, consider the famous mathematician and physicist, Leonhard Euler, who wrote in "A Defense of the Revelation Against the Objections of Freethinkers", XVII. Proportional to the measure of knowledge that a reasoning creature can acquire, he cannot be happier than when he guides his will in a manne…

I'm not sure this the best opportunity to proselytize. Also, anecdotes about famous people don't really mean much.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#218

Post by aninhumer »

alanwatts wrote: post #197
Neslit wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not necessarily. The "whole human mind" and the "soul" are very metaphysical concepts so it's tough to say. In my estimation, the "whole human mind" or "soul" of a person is not annihilated when someone dies. Our minds are an amorphous network constantly in intercourse with and dependent upon eachother. When a loved one dies, all of the love they gave and words they said exist in some form or another within us, withi…

>When a loved one dies, all of the love they gave and words they said exist in some form or another within us

Yes, but all of that would still exist if they didn't die, so it's irrelevant.

>Acceptance of Death

There's a difference between coming to terms with the likelihood of ones death, and thinking it's a good thing.

Death is a horrible thing that we should seek to prevent if at all possible.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#219

Post by loopbit »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #66

Good journey sir. Thank you for this piece. I feel your model should become an international standard. I am saddened to see you are so young. > ... and enforce the barbaric torture of decay and failure. It's especially relevant for cancer, which is a primary cause of death I'm glad you find yourself somewhere enlightened. As someone who watched his father die of cancer over 2.5-3 years in the UK it almost robbed me o…

At least the UK seems to be making moves toward a better system, Terry Pratchett had a bit to do with it. The rest of the european countries are blind to this issue.

This is something that hits very close to home, as I'm in the same path as Pieter and your father and I see that path getting me to the same end. If that happens, I'd like to end on my terms, not as the husk that you describe and not after having my family go through all the pain that you describe.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#220

Post by nihonde »

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…

I just spent over a year with someone who died of cancer on Tuesday. I don't know if she would have opted for suicide if it had been legal here, but I do know that the last few weeks were extremely difficult for everyone involved. I have a very clear image of how cancer kills a person now. We did our best to maintain her dignity, but the body is not on your side. It's humbling, to say the least, which is a profound lesson in and of itself.
Post reply on HN