Live data from Hacker News

A Protocol for Dying

hintjens.com

151–160 of 347 posts

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#151
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put it bluntly, I can think of a number of other cases where (1) people say things to children because it is more pleasant or convenient, not because it is true, and (2) these misleading statements have negative effects later. In this case, it seems potentially worthwhile to keep in view that death is actually not a good thing, and that it would better if there weren't death, and that we want to keep an eye out fo…

Death is just another part of life. It's going to get you eventually. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori

Death is not a part of life, it is its destruction.

That it is currently inevitable does not mean it doesn't suck, or that we shouldn't try to change that.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely odd thing to comment. You may be right, but your comment just feels inappropriate in the context of this thread.

IMO extremely wrong comments are the ones accepting the death and even celebrating how "strong" a person dying against his will is.

As the parent of two teenagers and a former 15 year old myself, let me just acknowledge that it's tough being 15 years old, but it does get better, and one day you will stop writing things like this.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#153
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would be over a hundred billion people today if nobody ever died, and that's only counting the humans. The practical reality of the world since the dawn of life has been that if you want to shake up the genetic Lego box and create new creatures, the old creatures have to die. Eventually. The analogy is not perfect. To create new Lego creations you have to destroy the old ones first. But analogies are never perf…

Does this seem like a desirable state of affairs? I think I'd rather not have anyone die involuntarily. If we put our minds to it, I bet we could figure out how to not have anyone die who didn't want to. There's no physical law that says you can't have billions or trillions of humans live awesome lives for a very long time (though maybe not literally forever).

what? accidents kill people and all living things all the time.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#154
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put it bluntly, I can think of a number of other cases where (1) people say things to children because it is more pleasant or convenient, not because it is true, and (2) these misleading statements have negative effects later. In this case, it seems potentially worthwhile to keep in view that death is actually not a good thing, and that it would better if there weren't death, and that we want to keep an eye out fo…

Death is just another part of life. It's going to get you eventually. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori

I have built a hexapod robot with six legs, 18 servos, a single board computer and a camera. It can walk and recognize simple objects. If one or 10 of the servos break, I can use spares to fix my robot.

Why can't I fix my body when it breaks? Why shouldn't I be able to do it? Why hide our inability to fix ourselves behind beautifully written but empty centuries' old concepts ("memento mori") ?

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#156
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean because of limited resources like food and space? Sure, but (1) these look like difficult but quite solvable problems (we are engineers, after all) and (2) the alternative is having every person who has ever lived also be dead, which sounds bad to me. There might be more clever options, like cryopreserve everyone who dies; this does not consume many resources (the only recurring cost is liquid nitrogen, w…

Well, yes. According to a quick search something like 108 billion people have ever lived (compared to 7 billion who walk the Earth today). That seems like a population that would be pretty hard to keep going without having a few extra Earths. Besides that, it is immaterial. We are all going to die someday and there is nothing we can do about it. The people seeing cryogenics are largely snake-oil salesmen. I don't bel…

>That seems like a population that would be pretty hard to keep going without having a few extra Earths.

Do you think this problem is merely very difficult, or literally impossible to solve (e.g. because of some physical law)? I think that if a bunch of really smart humans tried really hard to solve this problem, and you predicted very very confidently that they would fail, then I would be pretty skeptical of your confidence. Just as an example, you suggest getting some more Earths. Sounds like one solid approach; expand humanity to other planets!

>We are all going to die someday and there is nothing we can do about it. [...] I don't believe anybody will ever find immortality (at least not in this life).

This might literally true, in the sense that we probably can't survive the heat death of the universe in however many bazillions of years. But do you think it is implausible that advanced medical technology could e.g. keep us alive, healthy, and sane for, say, thousands of years? This sounds both plausible and quite desirable to me, and I'm confused by your statements---for instance, I can't tell whether you are making a factual claim or an aesthetic claim.

>The people seeing cryogenics are largely snake-oil salesmen.

Eh? They seem pretty sincere; the people who run these organizations (Cryonics Institute, Alcor) are generally themselves signed up for cryonics, and speak passionately about life extension as a desirable goal. Cryonics is not exactly a get-rich-quick scheme.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#157
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this seem like a desirable state of affairs? I think I'd rather not have anyone die involuntarily. If we put our minds to it, I bet we could figure out how to not have anyone die who didn't want to. There's no physical law that says you can't have billions or trillions of humans live awesome lives for a very long time (though maybe not literally forever).

what? accidents kill people and all living things all the time.

Well, yeah :P This is a strong argument for trying to prevent fatal accidents!

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

downvotes? I'm not sure how this rates those. Accuracy isn't really helpful to a five year old who doesn't yet have all the concepts needed. The tooth fairy isn't accurate either. Accuracy will get you an endless cycle of "but why dad?"

> Accuracy will get you an endless cycle of "but why dad?" So keep answering until you can't, and then say "I don't know". Curiosity is something to be fostered, not shutdown with lies.

Louis CK has some insight on kids asking "Why?" http://youtu.be/BJlV49RDlLE

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#159
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes. According to a quick search something like 108 billion people have ever lived (compared to 7 billion who walk the Earth today). That seems like a population that would be pretty hard to keep going without having a few extra Earths. Besides that, it is immaterial. We are all going to die someday and there is nothing we can do about it. The people seeing cryogenics are largely snake-oil salesmen. I don't bel…

>That seems like a population that would be pretty hard to keep going without having a few extra Earths. Do you think this problem is merely very difficult, or literally impossible to solve (e.g. because of some physical law)? I think that if a bunch of really smart humans tried really hard to solve this problem, and you predicted very very confidently that they would fail, then I would be pretty skeptical of your co…

Yes, I think it is extremely unlikely people will figure out thousand-year lifespans. I suppose perhaps we could somehow colonize other planets but I don't see any progress or even interest in progress there right now. As for cryogenics, check this out: http://thebaffler.com/salvos/everybody-freeze-pein

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't we do both? Our track record on cures rather than palliative treatments is abysmal. So yes, let's research disease and cures. Let's consider quality of life and the wishes of those involved above all. A greater element of the system not squarely focussed on profit would be helpful. For many forms of cancer we actually have one of the few exceptions. Survival rates from cancers are far higher than twenty or thir…

>For those unlucky enough to have a terminal condition (and regardless of progress there will always be some), or riddled with chronic conditions and infirmity, let's allow them to pass with dignity, when and how they choose. I'm all for that, after all one can decide what to do with his/her life and how to end it. But I think it would be much more fair to give people another choice: being cryopreserved. Sounds futur…

I can speak only for me. I don't want to be an anachronism in some distant future. We're a very long way from cryo being a viable solution anyway. Bring a formerly healthy rat back, then we'll talk. :)

Consider how our current world would treat people from the 18th or 19th C. Would it be endless media titilation, Buzzfeed memes of 20 things you didn't know about Bob the Victorian? Would there be the discrimination akin to how we treat indigenous or third world peoples? Would we help Bob the Victorian to get fully up to speed with society, or just see a curiosity?

So, for now, I'm happy with my lot.

Post reply on HN