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

We will all be dead soon

adambourg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: We will all be dead soon

#61

Post by askafriend »

steego wrote: post #56
askafriend wrote: post #11

Meh. This guy just sounds depressed. Sure there's truth in some of what he's saying, but I think the fact that we and all of our stuff will be gone is great. I'm here to enjoy the ride! I'm gonna go fast in my fancy car - zoom zoom see ya later.

So what if we he was depressed? Maybe he is depressed, or in the process of trying to get over depression. At some point, most people have this epiphany. His may be now. If so, I'm happy for him. There's a part of me that wouldn't understand the gravity of this post because I never had an unhealthy obsession with stuff in the first place. I grew up with stuff and never had to go without. I enjoy hitting the sport but…

As others have mentioned, this post gives off strong "I’m 14 and this is deep" vibes.

I think you're projecting your own experience onto a post that is low quality and not that interesting. Judging by the fact that it's flagged, I think others agree.

Re: We will all be dead soon

#62

Post by spandrew »

I often see articles like this, and they seem to think the message people takeaway from nihilistic meanderings like this is "nothing is forever therefore your toils are folly". The author failing to see the time you spend together with your family will also fade to nothing.

The solution is a balanced life, realizing that only examples of things that resonated beyond their time are the toils, both failed and otherwise, of humans. And there is no meaning of life other than to experience life. So toil away; and spend time enjoying your family & friends.

Re: We will all be dead soon

#63

Post by dtnewman »

groby_b wrote: post #42
thefz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing relative to God in OP's post. Contrarily,it is materialistic in nature.

This was neither the point of the PP, nor is the OP "materialistic" in nature. (Did you mean secular?) Both are questioning how you should invest your time, and what really matters in your life. Yes, sure, PP is anchored in religion, but the sentiment is the same.

⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆

The point doesn't have to do with religion. Rather that people (many of whom were religious thinkers) have been thinking along these lines for thousands of years.

Re: We will all be dead soon

#64

Post by _ddzr »

Wow, this is flagged? What was wrong with it, the suggestion we should not be intolerant of others? I will remind you of the paradox of tolerance, which explains why we shouldn’t tolerate intolerance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

It is an important philosophical principle that is crucial to maintaining a free society.

Re: We will all be dead soon

#65

Post by daveguy »

ROTMetro wrote: post #59
baal80spam wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Money does buy time? With money you don't have to sell your labour at exploitative rates. I am inclined to agree - with money you can afford healthier food which in theory should make your life longer

Organic oatmeal costs $1 a pound. Add dirt cheap in bulk organic raisins, flax, walnuts, almonds, cinnamon, banana's and you have 1 meal, 2 of your fruit/veggie servings, tons of oils for like $1. Takes 3.5 minutes to make. Fishing/hunting is the cost of a license. You can fill your freezer in 1 trip. I eat healthy organic/gluten free for $25 a week and am overweight not starving.

That doesn't sound healthy. I didn't see a single veggie in your list besides the word veggie.

Re: We will all be dead soon

#66

Post by bovermyer »

baal80spam wrote: post #54
bovermyer wrote: post #41

Nothing we do matters, cosmically speaking. However, each of us is at the center of our own universe, and from that context, a variety of things are important or unimportant. From the context of self, we derive importance. That universe exists only as long as the self exists. In that context, what you deem important is important. What you deem unimportant is unimportant. And those states shift over time. I'm not well…

> Nothing we do matters, cosmically speaking. This is true of course, however I can't imagine living thinking that and not getting depressed/insane.

That's nihilism for you.

I don't understand it, but that doesn't stop me from trying to.

Re: We will all be dead soon

#67

Post by forgetfreeman »

osmarks wrote: post #57
forgetfreeman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is literally no plausible way to extend your lifespan another 100 years.

I am expecting lots of biotech progress during my existing likely natural lifespan.

Ignoring all of the other issues with senescence on a long enough timeline cancer is guaranteed, so you are in effect stating a belief that we will comprehensively cure cancer in your lifetime. Big if true.

Re: We will all be dead soon

#68

Post by rich_sasha »

aaron425 wrote: post #20
rich_sasha wrote: post #6

If it's all going to shit anyway, how are "real" things better than glitzy consumerism? Those kisses from children will be gone just the same as the expensive watches. Actually, vintage watches have a thriving second hand market. I mean, I don't disagree with the conclusion, but the argument ain't great.

That’s… an odd argument to make. Do you really think that the vast majority of people derive more happiness from having things than experiences/memories with loved ones? I think a popular sentiment near the end of life for most is that they wish they’d adventured more and spent additional time with family & friends, not acquiring material goods or more wealth.

> Do you really think that the vast majority of people derive more happiness from having things than experiences/memories with loved ones?

No, but that's not the argument OP makes. They say, we will all be dead and our possession gone so they have no value. Meanwhile, time with loved ones... Well it will be gone too! But somehow that's fine.

That one is better than another is not an argument OP makes.

Re: We will all be dead soon

#69

Post by somenameforme »

thunderbong wrote: post #52
mlboss wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not believing in it does not make it false. We are all made of earth and after death we go back in earth and then born again. So in a sense reincarnation happens but without the memory.

Russell's teapot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

It doesn't really apply in things such as what happens after death, because such a thing is essentially by definition immeasurable and unfalsifiable. So any view largely becomes an opinion. There is no factual basis for anything.

For myself, I think what little evidence we have to form an opinion would based around the absurdity of existence itself. If you really think about the fact that we actually and undoubtedly exist it's really quite terrifying. The argument that the initial big bang could have been driven by quantum fluctuations is meaningless as you always end up with the question of what created the laws enabling such fluctuations, the 'void' in which it happens, or or even quantum mechanics itself. Of course if one takes a deistic point of view you end up with the exact same issue. If God created everything, then what created God?

It's years of pondering this that led from atheism to agnosticism. Even intellectually appealing "answers" like the simulation hypothesis offer no real answer. Imagine you 'die', 'wake up', and pat yourself on the back upon finding out it was indeed a simulation. Well you still have no answer whatsoever because the question of creation now emerges once again in your new reality. Turtles all the way down, simulations all the way up?

Re: We will all be dead soon

#70

Post by somenameforme »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #67
osmarks wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am expecting lots of biotech progress during my existing likely natural lifespan.

Ignoring all of the other issues with senescence on a long enough timeline cancer is guaranteed, so you are in effect stating a belief that we will comprehensively cure cancer in your lifetime. Big if true.

Disease isn't even the half of it. As you age your body simply wears out. Your muscles begin to wear out and break down, eventually including critical ones such as your heart, your bones become frail to the point that even slight fall becomes potentially lethal, and of course as I assume you were alluding to - your mind also begins to give way such that even if you might still have a heart beat, you're hardly alive. Imagining all of this will suddenly be overcome is neither rational nor in any way supported.

Individuals like Ray Kurzweil intentionally lied to themselves. His argument was that human life expectancy has been increasing rapidly over the past 'xx' years, and eventually it will accelerate to a rate such that life expectancy will increase by more than a year, per year - immortality. But it's just complete and utter nonsense. Life expectancy increased largely because of reductions in infant mortality - not people living longer. And he certainly knows that. Individuals like Hippocrates (of the Hippocratic Oath) lived to their 90s 2,400 years ago. The peaks of human longevity aren't changing much at all. The only thing that's changing is that more people are able to get to them.

Post reply on HN