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

Unselfish People Are More Likely to Wind Up with Depression

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 137 posts

Re: Unselfish People Are More Likely to Wind Up with Depression

#121

Post by zxcmx »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #46
drngdds wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I'd have it much better than all the people who had to die. But I already have it much better than all the people who are killed or crippled by preventable illnesses because they were unlucky enough to be born into poverty. But that doesn't really factor into my moral reasoning. My living forever wouldn't necessarily make things worse for people who don't get to do that. So, as a consequentialist, I don't think…

That's not my point. My point is why do you want to live forever? Is anyone on this forum so important that they deserve to live for 10,000 years, when the entirety of human civilization which made that possible is now dead? Nobody is that important or has that much to offer to the world. It's purely an ego driven thing based on us as individuals. I'm not assigning moral right and wrong to it, I'm just saying it's ir…

How about a limit argument then?

Ok if not 10,000 years, why not 500? Still too much? Another 50 then? At what point does this argument tell me I should just kill myself right now because I don't "deserve" to live any longer?

It seems to me that you've chosen an arbitrary number (current average lifespan) and somehow chosen that to be "fair" and that living any longer is "selfish" and "ego driven".

In the absence of modern medicine we might live on average for 50 years. Is living that extra 30 years I might get from technology also selfish?

Hypothetically, if everyone can live forever if they want, is it ok then?

Re: Unselfish People Are More Likely to Wind Up with Depression

#122

Post by vilmosi »

dismantlethesun wrote: post #94
aaron-lebo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not my point. My point is why do you want to live forever? Is anyone on this forum so important that they deserve to live for 10,000 years, when the entirety of human civilization which made that possible is now dead? Nobody is that important or has that much to offer to the world. It's purely an ego driven thing based on us as individuals. I'm not assigning moral right and wrong to it, I'm just saying it's ir…

> That's not my point. My point is why do you want to live forever? From an emotional point of view, I do not want my parents to die. They're in 70s, but I think that the time they have left is too short. I'd like them to live to see their 80s, their 100s, their 200s. I would like them to be there in 20 years when the last of my children graduate university. I would like them to see their grandchildren get married, a…

You're kind of missing the point. If people lived 500 years it still wouldn't be enought. We're biologically programmed to want more.

Knowing there's a time limit, you would want to extend it. Knowing there's no time limit, everything would stop having any meaning. Why would you get married and have kids if you could have it 100 years later?

Re: Unselfish People Are More Likely to Wind Up with Depression

#123

Post by vilmosi »

greggman wrote: post #70
aaron-lebo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not my point. My point is why do you want to live forever? Is anyone on this forum so important that they deserve to live for 10,000 years, when the entirety of human civilization which made that possible is now dead? Nobody is that important or has that much to offer to the world. It's purely an ego driven thing based on us as individuals. I'm not assigning moral right and wrong to it, I'm just saying it's ir…

My own perspective (which I can already tell you'll likely disagree with) is that I want to live forever to remove the burden of having to choose only 1 to 2 more major experiences in my life (I'm 52). As an example I leaned Japanese. To do so I moved to Japan at 33. My experience there tells me if I want to learn Chinese and actually remember it I need to move to China for 6-8 years. Given I only have 20-30 years le…

>>> People used to only live to an average of 30.

Common misconception. While median lifespan was that, it was heavily influenced by infant mortality.

It was bad, but it wasn't that bad

Re: Unselfish People Are More Likely to Wind Up with Depression

#124

Post by dismantlethesun »

vilmosi wrote: post #122
dismantlethesun wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not my point. My point is why do you want to live forever? From an emotional point of view, I do not want my parents to die. They're in 70s, but I think that the time they have left is too short. I'd like them to live to see their 80s, their 100s, their 200s. I would like them to be there in 20 years when the last of my children graduate university. I would like them to see their grandchildren get married, a…

You're kind of missing the point. If people lived 500 years it still wouldn't be enought. We're biologically programmed to want more. Knowing there's a time limit, you would want to extend it. Knowing there's no time limit, everything would stop having any meaning. Why would you get married and have kids if you could have it 100 years later?

> You're kind of missing the point.

I had thought the point was answering "why would you want to live forever?" so I gave it my best shot. :)

> Why would you get married and have kids if you could have it 100 years later?

Because you get the enjoyment of marriage and an expanded family now.

Frankly, speaking, I cannot believe people would be willing to delay satisfaction for 100s of years, merely because they are immortal.

But what if you're right? Well then...

If in fact living past 200 causes everything to be meaningless, we'll likely just find out people waste away from old age depression, and the point of the debate is moot.

If immortals stop caring about life because it is long lasting, we'll just find the first members of the immortal generation do worse than their mortal peers in all respects.

The question of "how much life is too much life" is something I would rather find out through primary research on people who are 500 or more years old, instead of debating in the hypothetical.

Practically though, I doubt immortality is within the grasp of this current generation. Research into 'immortality' is just using forever as an ideal---not as an expectation of what will really be delivered upon.

Extending life by a few more decades is a valid goal for our generation.

Re: Unselfish People Are More Likely to Wind Up with Depression

#125

Post by vilmosi »

dismantlethesun wrote: post #124
vilmosi wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're kind of missing the point. If people lived 500 years it still wouldn't be enought. We're biologically programmed to want more. Knowing there's a time limit, you would want to extend it. Knowing there's no time limit, everything would stop having any meaning. Why would you get married and have kids if you could have it 100 years later?

> You're kind of missing the point. I had thought the point was answering "why would you want to live forever?" so I gave it my best shot. :) > Why would you get married and have kids if you could have it 100 years later? Because you get the enjoyment of marriage and an expanded family now . Frankly, speaking, I cannot believe people would be willing to delay satisfaction for 100s of years, merely because they are im…

>>> Because you get the enjoyment of marriage and an expanded family now

You already raised 4 generations of humans by now or you can still do the same thing because you're not even half way your life. Why would you want to do it now when your "teenage" years last 50 years and your "twenties" 100. You can experience everything, just for longer.

>>> If immortals stop caring about life because it is long lasting, we'll just find the first members of the immortal generation do worse than their mortal peers in all respects.

500 year life expectancy vs immortality is another discussion.

>>> Practically though, I doubt immortality is within the grasp of this current generation.

Yeah, I know. It's all hypothetical for us

Re: Unselfish People Are More Likely to Wind Up with Depression

#126

Post by newscracker »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #7
k-mcgrady wrote: post #2

The point here seems to be that unselfish people are more empathetic to the plight of others. while I don't disagree I wonder if unselfishness leads people into situations where they work towards others benefit (people they perceive as being treated unfairly) at their own detriment also possibly leading to issues with depression. That's the point I presumed the article would make before I read it.

When I see people talk about living indefinitely around here in threads that come up occasionally, it does make me wonder if they are on the other side of some selfishness cutoff. It's weird to think that you'd be interested in living for centuries or longer in a world that has seen everyone before you die and day by day sees horrific injustice. It's almost solipsistic. The same dynamic exists with those hundred mill…

I don’t see much of a disconnect with the idea of living much longer, though if that were really possible, I understand that it would have repercussions on everyone else on a larger scale.

I work in areas that look at suffering and alleviating that (in ways most people on the planet don’t) but I also wonder and wish if I could live much longer than currently possible (longer life without tackling aging is pointless, IMO). The main reason for me is that I’m so utterly fascinated and awed by everything humans have accomplished and continue to accomplish (even though there are vast areas of improvement), and I really, really want to see humans going to another planet, setting up a colony, etc., among many other things. Life itself is such a wonder and seemingly miraculous (without assigning any supernatural motives).

Re: Unselfish People Are More Likely to Wind Up with Depression

#127

Post by newscracker »

Disillusioned9 wrote: post #43

The article makes no attempt to establish that concern for others' interests is not necessarily mutually exclusive to self-interest. In his book Give and Take, Adam Grant talks about givers who are "otherish:" they demonstrate strong compassion for others, but not at the neglect of self-interest. Those who identified as otherish were least susceptible to burnout or compassion fatigue and could sustain their patterns…

From practical observation, I disagree with your last point. When fighting for improving the state of affairs or fighting against injustice, the amount of time and effort it takes to achieve even small positive changes is huge in many areas. Even with self-interest, the amount of extreme hopelessness doesn’t really go away. Add to this the fact that people who could easily care and make a difference most often ignore things, it’s a recipe for becoming frustrated, feeling helpless and seeing things like a never ending struggle with very little to show for. The lack of empathy and the high prevalence of inaction among the majority act as triggers in all this.

Re: Unselfish People Are More Likely to Wind Up with Depression

#128

Post by dismantlethesun »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #101
imgabe wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is anyone on this forum so important that they deserve to live for 10,000 years Nobody is important and nobody deserves anything. There's no outside force making decisions about who is allowed to have what. You get what you figure out how to get and you keep it as long as you figure out how to keep it. > It's purely an ego driven thing based on us as individuals. But assigning yourself to be the arbiter of who is o…

But assigning yourself to be the arbiter of who is or isn't "important" enough to "deserve" an extended lifespan isn't ego-driven? I realize I'm not important. My opinion that ultimately no individual is especially important is not based out of ego but a recognition that there's been like 10 billion of us and there will be more. But if you want it, have at it; maybe just consider why you want it. If you're going to l…

Many people are coming from the point of view that immortality would be spread out to everyone---so we won't be alone.

However, if only one person can be immortal and for instance it's you Aaron... then you will become important out of virtue of your status. In a ten thousand years, you might be the only remaining record of the 21st century.

Re: Unselfish People Are More Likely to Wind Up with Depression

#129

Post by dismantlethesun »

vilmosi wrote: post #125
dismantlethesun wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're kind of missing the point. I had thought the point was answering "why would you want to live forever?" so I gave it my best shot. :) > Why would you get married and have kids if you could have it 100 years later? Because you get the enjoyment of marriage and an expanded family now . Frankly, speaking, I cannot believe people would be willing to delay satisfaction for 100s of years, merely because they are im…

>>> Because you get the enjoyment of marriage and an expanded family now You already raised 4 generations of humans by now or you can still do the same thing because you're not even half way your life. Why would you want to do it now when your "teenage" years last 50 years and your "twenties" 100. You can experience everything, just for longer. >>> If immortals stop caring about life because it is long lasting, we'll…

I personally don't see any issue with waiting till you are 50 to raise children, today... even when the life expectancy is 75. Life is to be celebrated no matter what age someone is when they become parents.

If biology were no constraint, I can imagine some people would have children once every hundred years, and spend the next century shepherding them into good position in their growing dynasty.

That said, with vastly increased life spans, the whole notion of reproduction and marriage would take on new meaning, and I doubt many of the ideas we ascribe to today will be of much concern in the future.

> Yeah, I know. It's all hypothetical for us

Yes, which is why I don't see much of a reason to be so pessimistic. Those whom want to live forever---hypothetically will. Those who do not, as they are bored or tired, will choose not to continue onwards.

I can imagine a future of mostly happy immortals.

Re: Unselfish People Are More Likely to Wind Up with Depression

#130

Post by racer-v »

lliamander wrote: post #109
racer-v wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope - clinical depression is different from "feeling bad in response" to a specific stimulus. If you do something hurtful to me and I feel bad about it, that's not depression. When nothing is happening and I feel bad in general, that's depression. The article says, people who feel bad in response to specific types of stimulus (a perceived slight), rather than just shrugging it off, are more likely to develop full-bl…

However, there is a personality trait, Neuroticism, which has to do with sensitivity to negative emotion, and also does correlate with depression, anxiety, etc. In other words, if you are higher in Neuroticism (i.e. more susceptible to negative emotions) then you are more likely to also develop clinical depression.

What is the state of personality theory constructs with respect to empirical validation (e.g. fMRI)?
Post reply on HN