It's not over, till its over.
At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on
11–20 of 287 posts
Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on
#12The worst time to start thinking about death is when you are facing it.
So let me tell you after thinking about this for the last 50 plus years; There is no birth so there is no death. You think there is birth and death, but it is just a thought. To be alive means you would have had to be dead already for am infinite amount of time before your birth, so what are you scared of?
Maybe we are "dead" right now, and this "life" is the "death" of the infinite life we had before our "birth".
You see, this article is nothing but a fluff piece that just adds more fear and thought into the world. Live your life to the fullest? Ha! Life is for enjoyment? Ha! This is death porn, that's all.
Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on
#13"Mostly it is loss which teaches us about the worth of things." -- Arthur Schopenhauer
So if I never loose my money it is worthless! Ha!
Sorry, no. It is our attachment to things that determine their worth.
Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on
#14I wish more people would learn about cryonics. It's either 0 or something above zero probability.
But not giving your family closure, and an indefinite cost to the environment/them, for 0 or something above 0 success.
Alcor, for example, charges what amounts to a fee to perform the preservation and a fee to go into a fund that will be invested to pay for your ongoing preservation. "Not giving your family an additional $80,000 on your death" amounts to the same thing as "taking $X from them in perpetuity", but it's psychologically different. It's all about the cost-benefit analysis, whose outcome may be different for different people; some people just don't value their lives very much and are more willing to die the true death, some people have family who are getting on just fine without the cash injection provided by their death so are more willing to spend the money on preservation, and so on.
"Not giving your family closure" is something you just have to discuss with your own family. I, for one, would treat cryopreservation as effectively death with a rather unusual body-disposal mechanism, for the purposes of grieving etc; there's certainly almost no chance I'll see a cryopreserved person again before my own first death. For a family made up of people like me, that particular argument holds no water at all.
Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on
#15Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have not seen a reason to think cryonics will work at all. Even if we actually do find a way to restore frozen near-death people to life, you'd better write a heck of a pitch as to why future humans should spend resources on reviving and healing you. Never mind all the resources being spent on keeping you properly frozen all that time. That's all assuming the company running your freezer doesn't just go belly-up af…
the argument is this: certain death vs a miniscule one in a quadrillion chance or lower. It will always tilt the other way no matter what the current scientific status quo is saying because it's possible in theory and it has happened to living organisms before just not humans. Whether it's good for environment, your siblings pocket etc is not part of the core argument.
I think even if you ignore the environment, and cost, the argument for cryonics is not very good.
Let's say someone is successfully revived, there's still heart attacks, cancer, crime (and not just "lowly" criminals, crime also happens within families for inheritance, for example), accidents (car, or just slipping in the shower), earthquakes, ... The list is pretty much endless.
Death is unavoidable, IMHO it's best to learn to cope with it, and focus efforts on reducing what most people would consider the worst deaths (infants, long and painful diseases, wars and torture, etc).
That said, as long as not many people try this (the environmental cost would be high), if many people think about this possibility and that helps them cope with their mortality, and that of their loved ones, good for them.
Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have not seen a reason to think cryonics will work at all. Even if we actually do find a way to restore frozen near-death people to life, you'd better write a heck of a pitch as to why future humans should spend resources on reviving and healing you. Never mind all the resources being spent on keeping you properly frozen all that time. That's all assuming the company running your freezer doesn't just go belly-up af…
the argument is this: certain death vs a miniscule one in a quadrillion chance or lower. It will always tilt the other way no matter what the current scientific status quo is saying because it's possible in theory and it has happened to living organisms before just not humans. Whether it's good for environment, your siblings pocket etc is not part of the core argument.
Sound just like the argument for the worship of god.
Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
the argument is this: certain death vs a miniscule one in a quadrillion chance or lower. It will always tilt the other way no matter what the current scientific status quo is saying because it's possible in theory and it has happened to living organisms before just not humans. Whether it's good for environment, your siblings pocket etc is not part of the core argument.
I think even if you ignore the environment, and cost, the argument for cryonics is not very good. Let's say someone is successfully revived, there's still heart attacks, cancer, crime (and not just "lowly" criminals, crime also happens within families for inheritance, for example), accidents (car, or just slipping in the shower), earthquakes, ... The list is pretty much endless. Death is unavoidable, IMHO it's best t…
Learning to cope with death is not actually mutually exclusive with taking a punt on cryonics! A 1% chance of survival is still a 99% chance of death, so you'd better have made your peace with it either way.
Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on
#19"Mostly it is loss which teaches us about the worth of things." -- Arthur Schopenhauer
So if I never loose my money it is worthless! Ha! Sorry, no. It is our attachment to things that determine their worth.
Schopenhauer studied Hindu and Buddhist philosophy - of course he was aware how our attachments determine our value system and lead to suffering. Your comment is just a re-statement of the same truth. Our attachment to things are determined by the subjective weight of their loss.
Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on
#20"Mostly it is loss which teaches us about the worth of things." -- Arthur Schopenhauer
So if I never loose my money it is worthless! Ha! Sorry, no. It is our attachment to things that determine their worth.
It's a well known psychological phenomenon though. Losing a given sum of money is more painful than earning that same amount. if you find a $20 banknote on the sidewalk, you wont be as happy as the guy who lost lost it is pissed off.