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

41–50 of 101 posts

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#41

Post by pixl97 »

KronisLV wrote: post #38
slibhb wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

The immorality of it is irrelevant. People that feel it is moral will have children, people that feel it is immoral will not. Unless you also want to commit an act that I believe is immoral, and prevent others from having children.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#42

Post by kiba »

runsWphotons wrote: post #40
kiba wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Viruses aren't designed to do anything either.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#43

Post by causasui »

kubanczyk wrote: post #35
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…

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.

I made no attempt at making a point about parenting. The post I replied to said they wanted to have children for the experience and because their "body was designed to", essentially. The latter is just an appeal to nature. We can choose whether or not to procreate.

Rather, I made the point that I'd love to ask just one parent why they chose to have a child and have the answer not start w/ "Because I wanted..."

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#44

Post by runsWphotons »

KronisLV wrote: post #38
slibhb wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

One might respond to this challenge by developing a tradition for guiding children away from nihilism.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#46

Post by pixl97 »

amarant wrote: post #16
thret wrote: post #13

I do agree with this thesis in the sense that leaving an inheritance has no benefit to you. I've tried to explain to people that life insurance is a waste of money for this very reason but it is hard to put into words. I think they are undervaluing procreation though. You should do it because it makes you happy - I have never met a parent who regretted having children.

I've never met a parent tho didn't regret having children! I've also never met I've who would admit to regretting it openly. Now ask them if they would recommend it for you, and they'll spill the beans for you...

I'll have to say your experience is an anecdote and not data. I've met parents that were regretful of having children, but I have meet people who's only regret is they did not have more children than they did.

You may live in an environment where you have a limited set differing world experiences, keep that in mind when making any important decisions.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#48

Post by majewsky »

mcguire wrote: post #45

As for me, I'm not so in love with myself or the world that the idea of immortality sounds even moderately appealing. Spending eternity in the company of immortal people? Bleah.

Immortality in any practical sense of the word does not mean eternal life. Even if we have fountain-of-youth-type medicine, people are still going to get run over by buses.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#49

Post by pixl97 »

Retric wrote: post #10
maria_weber23 wrote: post #3

Wow, the author must be a bit depressed or something. I don't even know where to start. > If I’m going to cease to exist, it doesn’t matter what would be in a world without me. Oh yeah, egoism at its best lol. If I die, why shouldn't everyone else? > children make a human a slave of circumstances for at least 15 years. For what? For nothing, just because. Okay... He is also realizing that children are not his "helper…

> because we managed to eliminate natural selection. Evolution is alive and well. Drunk driving for example kills young people. Disease similarly kills plenty of people to kick evolution into action. Suicide is tragic enough people don’t think of it as evolutionary pressure, but dead is dead. Etc. Etc. It’s not as obvious as dealing with actual lions, but the developed world is well below the replacement rate. That’s…

The largest group of drunk driving deaths is 25-35 so already I'm not sure how much of an affect that is.

Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)

#50

Post by runsWphotons »

kiba wrote: post #42
runsWphotons wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Viruses aren't designed to do anything either.

Sometimes they are. (But that's not what I mean originally. You seem to object to the word design?)
Post reply on HN