Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not so much "forever" as "longer". I may want to die eventually, just not.. yet.
when does 'longer' end? 80? 120? 150? It's a hard question.
Preferably, whenever a person feels ready.
A startup is pitching a mind-uploading service that is “100 percent fatal”
311–320 of 441 posts
Re: A startup is pitching a mind-uploading service that is “100 percent fatal”
#312Maybe I'm a bit jaded...but I don't like this. Or any of the 'anti-aging' initiatives. Natural death is a beautiful thing; it's a part of life. I'll be honored to die a natural death at a normal age. I don't want to live forever - even at my age I feel the world is changing out from underneath me. Friends and family tick off one by one each year. I'm not too old yet, but already appreciative of the time I've been giv…
>> Natural death is a beautiful thing; it's a part of life. I'll be honored to die a natural death at a normal age. I completely disagree. Natural death is not a beautiful thing, and is sometimes painful. Even if I don't want to live forever, I'd like to be given the choice of when to die, basically when I'm tired of living. Maybe you still don't agree, but would you have thought differently if all your friends and f…
Childbirth is also, by all accounts, painful. But it's seen as a beautiful thing, no?
I don't mean to be contrary, these are all opinionated questions and I like the discussion. And it's really hard. A few of my favorite people(non famous or famous) died 'too young' and have very fond places in my heart and others. Yet some who lived to 80-something...grew old enough to disown their own family and die a lonely life in dementia.
Re: A startup is pitching a mind-uploading service that is “100 percent fatal”
#313Re: A startup is pitching a mind-uploading service that is “100 percent fatal”
#314We should do everything in our power to eliminate death. There is nothing meaningful about it. It is totally meaningless and tragic, and one day we'll look back on the days when millions died every year the same way we look back on the day when three fourths of children died before the age of five. And this criticism of the rich embracing it first totally misses how technology develops. The rich are always the early…
Dying may not be meaningful, but it may be useful. Let's say hypothetically we eliminate death, for everyone. Let's further say it developed in such a way that it didn't lead to a more stratified society (e.g. it rapidly became available to all, so the early mover advantage when it was expensive is minimal).
In the short term, that's great, incredible even: everyone lives! In the long term though, do we stagnate on the same set of brains, who are set in their ways from potentially hundreds of years of life and only capable of offering a certain amount of insight on any given topic? There's less incentive to have children (you can always do it later), and there may be physical constraints that limit the number of people the world can support. Without that infusion of new ideas, does human development grind to a halt (or at least slow considerably)? There's no fresh eyes coming to scientific endeavours, maybe restricting the sparks of innovation or new ways of thinking that lead to breakthroughs, and culturally there's no one unburdened by the past pushing the boundaries of the arts etc.
Now you may say (and I might even agree with you) that you'd rather be alive in a stagnant world than dead in one that keeps moving, but I feel there has to be limits to that. There's probably enough going on to keep you engaged for hundreds of years, but beyond that, a stagnant, unchanging world, with the same people, the same cultural, the same knowledge etc. in perpetuity seems incredibly daunting. Would people need to choose to die when they've had their fill to keep the ball rolling? Would enough people choose that, rather than clinging to a merger existence, to matter? Would that first generation of post-death humans last long enough that recovering the pace of development would even be (reasonably) possible?
Let's just say that on a personal level, I don't want to die (and a life _extension_ would be incredibly welcomed as there's plenty to do beyond the 80-or-so years people generally live), but the societal consequences of such a thing could be deeply negative.
Re: A startup is pitching a mind-uploading service that is “100 percent fatal”
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preferably, whenever a person feels ready.
What if nobody ever felt 'ready'? This is becoming more suicide prevention at this point no?
If no one is ever ready to die, then why do it? By the time this happens we'll more than likely be multiplanetary, and there'd be no incentive to really ever die.
It's less a moral issue than a logical issue - "Let a person contribute to the world until they feel they have nothing else they can do" isn't a terribly unreasonable idea.
Re: A startup is pitching a mind-uploading service that is “100 percent fatal”
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also a similar scene in Altered Carbon
It's rather a key theme of the Kovach trilogy. Envoys get reconstructed to resist digital torture. "Get to the next screen." Edit: The novels are much better than the Netflix videos. They are, in my opinion, crude hacks. Randomized and simplified. The virtual torture sequence in Altered Carbon is vastly more horrible than the one in the video. Even if I didn't care about spoilers, I'd hesitate to describe it here. An…
I watched the Netflix series and I really liked the premise but found the story and acting lacking in some areas.
However I really liked the noir protagonist and the scene you described was my favorite episode in the show. I am interested how the story continues.
Are the books much better than the show? How would you rate the trilogy among your favorite cyberpunk novels? Thanks.
Re: A startup is pitching a mind-uploading service that is “100 percent fatal”
#317Maybe I'm a bit jaded...but I don't like this. Or any of the 'anti-aging' initiatives. Natural death is a beautiful thing; it's a part of life. I'll be honored to die a natural death at a normal age. I don't want to live forever - even at my age I feel the world is changing out from underneath me. Friends and family tick off one by one each year. I'm not too old yet, but already appreciative of the time I've been giv…
Great. You die, I’ll live forever. I have no objection to you dying if you feel like it.
Re: A startup is pitching a mind-uploading service that is “100 percent fatal”
#318Maybe I'm a bit jaded...but I don't like this. Or any of the 'anti-aging' initiatives. Natural death is a beautiful thing; it's a part of life. I'll be honored to die a natural death at a normal age. I don't want to live forever - even at my age I feel the world is changing out from underneath me. Friends and family tick off one by one each year. I'm not too old yet, but already appreciative of the time I've been giv…
Great. You die, I’ll live forever. I have no objection to you dying if you feel like it.
what if i said that i don't personally -want- do die, just that I thought we should all die as life presents, for the good of humanity. Am I being controlling, or are you being selfish?
Re: A startup is pitching a mind-uploading service that is “100 percent fatal”
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
If medicine advanced to the point of repairing your body to be able to live a healthy life indefinitely would you try stay healthy using the best science has to offer or would you not?
It would depend on a lot of factors. Can everyone afford it, even my poorer friends and family? Is the population booming? Off the cuff - no. If we all lived forever there'd be no world change, the birth rate would have to drop by a ton to near zero, etc. The older I become, the more set in my ways I become. That's just natural, even if you consciously fight it. Imagine where we'd be as a society if they'd discovered…
I understand your point of view however it leaves more questions than answers. For example at what point do you stop trying to stay healthy? Modern medicine and sanitation got us this far. Is it already too much?
Re: A startup is pitching a mind-uploading service that is “100 percent fatal”
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if nobody ever felt 'ready'? This is becoming more suicide prevention at this point no?
If no one is ever ready to die, then why do it? By the time this happens we'll more than likely be multiplanetary, and there'd be no incentive to really ever die. It's less a moral issue than a logical issue - "Let a person contribute to the world until they feel they have nothing else they can do" isn't a terribly unreasonable idea.
Most people have nothing to contribute to the world. Should we kill them off early?