Live data from Hacker News

A Protocol for Dying

hintjens.com

281–290 of 347 posts

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be relevant to know, of the 'involuntary' numbers, how many of those were statutory involuntary and for what reasons. My hope is that in the majority of those cases the paperwork either just didn't get finished in time, or that the subject in some way did actually want this but started the process too late to be clearly of their own decision.

So you're essentially hoping that these people, who did not give explicit consent, actually (and perhaps secretly) did want to be killed? My hope is that where paperwork did go through, no person was uncertain or regretted their life-altering decision (which, for example, increases suicide risk in one's family twofold). But I doubt that either of our hopes lives up to reality.

> increases suicide risk in one's family twofold

What is the baseline here? Could you provide a source?

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#282

I actually wanted to attend that keynote and now you popup over here. Thought it would be a nice day, some friends / colleagues presenting anyway. Somehow my brain wandered off reading this article thinking what would have happened if you could have presented this blog post as a keynote. How would the audience react, would it differ from this where people have more time to digest it? Definitely some awkward social ev…

Hey - it's very respectable to go out with such dignity, but please don't call feeling bad and complaining about it "bitching" or "whining". The experience varies from person to person and it can be utterly terrifying to some. (Unless this is a reference I'm not getting or something, then nevermind)

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#283
post #71

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 think there are a few things going on here. First, while there's a great variety in the outward practices of many non-Protestant Christian Churches (e.g., the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Coptic Christian, etc.), theologically the differences are actually fairly minor, and many of them are in communion with one another. So, for instance, the fact that the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches are in communion with each other (or the Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic) means that both accept that the other is a valid expression of the Christian faith.

Now, of course, if you visit a Roman Catholic mass and a Byzantine Catholic liturgy, many aspects will be different (although there will also be many similarities). The churches will celebrate different feast days, they will fast on different days and in different manners, there will be different saints venerated, etc.

So does this mean that these traditions are arbitrary? I don't think so. How and when one fasts will vary, but the fact that one should fast does not. And the dates of a fast are not picked randomly --- in fact, if you look at any tradition of any of these churches, you will find very deep reasons for that particular tradition. It's just that there's not one right answer, so different churches have evolved their own unique answers (and in doing so, have emphasized slightly different aspects of the underlying theological truths).

So then why shouldn't a Roman Catholic like myself try out all the different churches until I find one that I like the best for myself? Living in a multicultural country like the United States, this part is harder to convey. But there is, I think, a great value in living in a society that practices its religion in a similar way. As an analogy, I could just decide that I would rather celebrate Thanksgiving on May 21 every year. But there's some value in living in a society where everyone, collectively, celebrates Thanksgiving on the same day so that families can get together and we can watch football and eat turkey. So while I could come up with my own way of practicing Christianity that would, in some sense, be valid, there is enormous value in accepting the traditions of my community that have evolved over centuries.

This all gets to a larger point in the Orthodox and Catholic faiths about hubris and respect for tradition. The idea is that, in general, practices don't stick around for centuries unless there's a good reason for it. You or I might not immediately understand what that reason is, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one. Moreover, and this is in contrast to many Protestant faiths, there is an idea in Catholicism and Orthodoxy that many truths come to us through Tradition rather than through Scripture. That is, Christ taught certain things to his Apostles, who taught them to the earliest Christians, who continued to pass them down the centuries. Some of these things were written down in Scripture, but not all. So, for instance, you won't find a passage in the Bible that forbids bishops from being married. But no Catholic or Orthodox bishops are married because this is a part of our tradition. But respect for tradition doesn't mean that the tradition is static. It just means that it changes only gradually and deliberately.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those crying children couldn't exist if their grandparents and their grandparents down the line never died. There wouldn't be enough food or resources to sustain indefinite existence for everyone who wants it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecophagy

That just means food production is a problem we need to solve in order to prevent people dying. It doesn't mean the death itself is a good thing. And if food consumption truly became limiting, would you prefer a society that kills people at a certain age, or one that limits the birth rate?

>would you prefer a society that kills people at a certain age, or one that limits the birth rate?

Neither. I'd prefer one smart enough to understand the demographic economic paradox and successfully raise the standard of living so that the problem of overpopulation solves itself naturally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#285
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not sincere anger. It's trolls who are trying to find ways to annoy and provoke people. There is no point in arguing with them logically, they'll just continue in a different direction.

I don't know if you were including me, but either way I'm sorry and I'll stop now (just saw this).

For the record: I sincerely am not trying to annoy or provoke anyone; I've been concerned about derailing the thread, but a discussion of other emotions around death didn't seem too inappropriate. I sincerely think death is painful and difficult to think about, but that it is worth thinking about sanely, and that death is obviously a bad thing in this world. I am sincerely angry when conscious human minds are prevented by Death from exploring, creating, and loving as much as they want.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#286

Are you getting fully sequenced before you die, so if there are discoveries later, your kids will have a database of you to compare against? Apparently the cost finally dropped below $1kUSD this year

Hahaha... oh wait, you're serious?

I think, and hope my kids will slowly forget about me except as deep and positive experiences, and it would be narcissistic in the extreme to ask them to carry my DNA around like ashes, just in case.

None of us are that special, me certainly not. Life is for the living, not the dead.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#287

It's strange to see such a protocol, that it was necessary in the first place. I guess people just assumed the wrong things even with their emotional compass as their guide. Thank you Pieter, you're truly a giver till the last drop, and a model to follow!

Honestly, I didn't write the protocol for my friends and family, who almost all know exactly how to behave. A few percent, maybe, have no clue. But then people reflect Bob's style and I'm a pretty chill guy. I just thought it would be nice to capture the experience for others, for future reference.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#288

The best protocol is to just ignore it. Animals do it, so why shouldn't we? This approach is also fully compatible with the idea that life itself is a "terminal disease".

From my observations, when put in situations similar to human's, animals don't "ignore" it in the same way as when left to themselves out there in the nature. (Admittedly, my sample size is very small.) We shouldn't ignore it just because of that -- we have relations, something wild animals not always have. This time of life is the last opportunity to tell other people that matter in your life -- and hear from them! -- all those things you always wanted to tell, but couldn't, for lots of stupid reasons. This will urge you independently of how you think about life, terminal disease or greatest gift (something in your message makes me think you are rather young).

I think Peter's protocol is exactly how this needs to be handled.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just means food production is a problem we need to solve in order to prevent people dying. It doesn't mean the death itself is a good thing. And if food consumption truly became limiting, would you prefer a society that kills people at a certain age, or one that limits the birth rate?

>would you prefer a society that kills people at a certain age, or one that limits the birth rate? Neither. I'd prefer one smart enough to understand the demographic economic paradox and successfully raise the standard of living so that the problem of overpopulation solves itself naturally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

Well yes, obviously you'd try to reduce the birth rate nicely first, and maybe that's a complete solution (to a problem you suggested), but that doesn't answer the question.

I'm asking what you do if population growth starts to outpace food production despite your best efforts? Do you start killing old people, or do you stop letting people have babies?

Post reply on HN