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

Immortality vs. Society (2016)

grishka.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 101 posts

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#31

Post by kiba »

rayiner wrote: post #25
kiba wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excuse me? Lot of people enjoyed life without having children.

It’s not about individuals having children, but a society that collectively has few to no children. 9 out of 10 people age 45+, if they had to do it all again, would have had children: https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.asp... . Only 1 in 10 wouldn’t have had kids if they had to do it over. Immortality would universalize the experience of the 10% to the other 90% of the population.

And? Having children isn't the sole determinant of our well being/happiness nor do they necessarily actually determine happiness.

Moreover, it's a reflection of current society, not a society of immortals. People for the most part considered immortality a foolish dream or actively hostile to the idea, driven by cultural inertia and active cultural reinforcement.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#32

Post by slibhb »

causasui wrote: post #29
majkinetor wrote: post #19

> For what? For nothing, just because. Don’t seek a rational explanation, you won’t find it. It doesn’t exist. Having a child is type of experience and commitment that has no parallel in any domain of life. It shapes you in certain ways if you are devoted to it. I want to be that type of person because I recognize some qualities that I admire (like being way less self-centric). My body is designed so that it can do t…

I'm curious if you're able to think of one non-selfish reason to have children? You mention having a child is an experience in which you wish to take part; you relish the thought of being less self-centered. Too little weight is given to the fact that no consciousness exists because it has willed itself into existence. Put another way, nothing consents to being given life. A feeling mind will come into being, suffer…

> I'm curious if you're able to think of one non-selfish reason to have childrena?

I enjoy being alive and experiencing things. I think this is true for most people. Therefore having children is moral.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#33

Post by jamesjyu »

Shelly Kagan wrote a great introduction to the philosophy of death [1]. It directly addresses many of the OP's arguments, and, it persuaded me that it's not a black and white issue (ie. immortality = ultimate good)

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Death-Open-Courses-Shelly-Kagan/dp/03...

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#35

Post by kubanczyk »

causasui wrote: post #29
majkinetor wrote: post #19

> For what? For nothing, just because. Don’t seek a rational explanation, you won’t find it. It doesn’t exist. Having a child is type of experience and commitment that has no parallel in any domain of life. It shapes you in certain ways if you are devoted to it. I want to be that type of person because I recognize some qualities that I admire (like being way less self-centric). My body is designed so that it can do t…

I'm curious if you're able to think of one non-selfish reason to have children? You mention having a child is an experience in which you wish to take part; you relish the thought of being less self-centered. Too little weight is given to the fact that no consciousness exists because it has willed itself into existence. Put another way, nothing consents to being given life. A feeling mind will come into being, suffer…

You've turned a parent's very minor point (literally only mentioned in parentheses!) into a mountain bigger than Mount Everest. That says a lot about you, but not much about parenting.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#36

Post by null_deref »

I'm happy that I'm going to die eventually, I think death provides great opportunity for new morals and ideas to take place.

I'm very happy to live in country where slavery doesn't exist and women have rights, I wouldn't want to live with the people that supported the opposite of those things. For example, what would've happen if the Nazis won, and Hitler would still be alive?

I also recognize my descendants will look at my decision to eat natural meat (that wasn't grown in a lab) with contempt. I just want to live my hundred years happily, and then make a room for better ideas and morals (I know I won't feel this way near the end of my life, but this is the right way).

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#37

Post by runsWphotons »

Nursie wrote: post #21
rayiner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immortality would be spitting in the face of humanity. A race of immortals has no need) or very little need) for children. Such a society would be joyless and without vitality, without the “firsts” that happen only once in a lifetime no matter how long you live. People imagine that life extension would mean that people would have time to see the world, to read every book, etc. But that’s not what makes most people ha…

Massive, sweeping, baseless assertions there.

Yes but what do you want on this topic? Speculating about immortality is also baseless.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#38

Post by KronisLV »

slibhb wrote: post #32
causasui wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious if you're able to think of one non-selfish reason to have children? You mention having a child is an experience in which you wish to take part; you relish the thought of being less self-centered. Too little weight is given to the fact that no consciousness exists because it has willed itself into existence. Put another way, nothing consents to being given life. A feeling mind will come into being, suffer…

> I'm curious if you're able to think of one non-selfish reason to have childrena? I enjoy being alive and experiencing things. I think this is true for most people. Therefore having children is moral.

But being brought into this world and knowing that one day your life is most likely going to end and that there's almost nothing that you can feasibly do to avoid it can easily balance out the positive aspects of being alive.

Personally, after often experiencing such existential dread and finding that it impacts my life in a pretty negative way, i've largely switched over to the nihilism school of thought. Then, it can be argued that bringing children into this world just to doom them to a similar fate would be pretty immoral.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#40

Post by runsWphotons »

kiba wrote: post #23
majkinetor wrote: post #19

> For what? For nothing, just because. Don’t seek a rational explanation, you won’t find it. It doesn’t exist. Having a child is type of experience and commitment that has no parallel in any domain of life. It shapes you in certain ways if you are devoted to it. I want to be that type of person because I recognize some qualities that I admire (like being way less self-centric). My body is designed so that it can do t…

Your body isn't designed to do anything. We are like viruses in the sense of whatever works, works. While folks who don't reproduce are summarily eliminated from the gene pool. Not because they don't have value, but because they don't 'work'. The fact that you find having children fulfilling is about you, not about anybody else.

Viruses are designed to infect, multiply and spread. Also humans are not viruses. I know that isn't what you meant since you specified "in the sense that...". But this kind of analogy seems to me to lead to bad thinking.
Post reply on HN