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

I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 306 posts

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#221

Post by Houshalter »

rahkiin wrote: post #215
lettergram wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*yet I am 100% confident that within the next two hundred years (baring some massive war, dark age, etc.) We will be able to use gene therapy to reduce cancer risk to negligible levels. We will probably even master the ability to program cells to do what we want... At which point all diseases where the body breaks down will likely be gone. That's not to say, we won't have issues regarding illness - just our bodies wo…

And then overpopulation will become a problem even more than it is now.

No it won't. All first world countries have less than sustainable population growth as it is. We produce vastly more food than we need, and will be able to produce even more in the future with genetically engineered algae. We have vast areas of the Earth left to settle including deserts, antarctica and the Oceans. Not to mention space. We have millennia worth of nuclear fuel available on Earth, not to mention other forms of energy. Overpopulation is a joke.

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#222

Post by asciimo »

waterpowder wrote: post #219
snuxoll wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pets are no less an important member of your family than a spouse, children, parents, etc. We may obtain these companions knowing full well we expect to outlive them many times over, but that doesn't mean the eventual loss impacts us less than losing any other member of our family. Never think your comparison isn't apt because it's "just a pet" :)

Actually yes, a pet is a much less important member of your family than a spouse, children or parent.

Indeed, that is one opinion.

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#224

Post by Practicality »

mikeryan wrote: post #170
anexprogrammer wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way to win is not to play. I'm past 50. I'm not overly fussed about dying, it's not like it's avoidable. I'm not overly fussed about how either as I'll get what I'm given. Of course I'd prefer a pain-free exit rather than a 2 year painful decline to incoherent as my father had. Unless you go in your sleep I suspect all routes have pain as the final memory. I have no fear of any of it. The only thing actually…

The only way to win is not to play It may be hokey but I believe the only way to win is to play excessively ;-)

Yeah, that works too. Not playing is better for global thermonuclear war.

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#225

Post by greendragon »

icebraining wrote: post #203
greendragon wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you should work on making your contract law more trustworthy then, if you think corporations can just randomly decide to extort your family years later.

Kinda hard to ensure it keeps being trustworthy after you're dead. Also, who said it was random? What if they simply run out of money, for any of the hundreds of reasons why companies do? Laws can't magically force them to keep it running if they literally can't afford to.

We don't even need to what-if: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/suspensionfailures.html

All I'm saying is that these scenarios can be sufficiently covered by contracts with the institute you want to preserve you. You can specify that in the unforeseen event of needing more funds to keep you preserved, that you are terminated and buried or cremated in such-and-such fashion without even trying to seek funds from potential relatives or descendants or the government. If contract compliance trust is an issue in Europe, that seems like something to fix first.

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#226

Post by duaneb »

scottlegrand2 wrote: post #206
duaneb wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make death out to be a problem, which is... unintuitive. What is to gain from "fixing" it?

I wouldn't kick a 500-year lifespan out of my genome, would you?

Yes. Living for 500 years sounds exhausting, pointless, terrible for the environment and my descendants, and a selfish use of resources.

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#227

Post by Houshalter »

emodendroket wrote: post #75
Artoemius wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason, in Europe, even less people seriously consider cryonics as an option, despite the population being generally less religious. Some view it with cynicism. Others just laugh.

Probably because it's quackery. http://thebaffler.com/salvos/everybody-freeze-pein

What a garbage article. It goes on and on about how weird cryonics is without discussing the science or whether or not it works. Of course cryonics is weird. That's not an argument.

Cryonics works. The connectome of your brain, what makes you, you, is preserved. At −238 degrees almost anything organic can be preserved for a long, long time. And with careful procedures done to prevent the formation of ice crystals, the damage done by the freezing process is minimal. It's by far the best chance you have of surviving.

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#228

Post by seanp2k2 »

VLM wrote: post #195
bad_user wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's your own life to take and as long as your brain still works and you have some freedom of movement, nobody can actually stop you from doing it if you're so determined. And granted, when talking about mental illnesses that are considered treatable, like depression, you can't expect assistance for suicide. But when talking terminal illnesses, like cancer or dementia, then not legalizing assisted deaths is not only…

"not wanting to take on some fucking responsibility for others." They'll have to explain their sins themselves, but by observation I think its giving up that they oppose. Going up to OPs question of who gets to decide, decades ago when my father died of some weird fast moving liver cancer no one religious had any issue with the numerous treatment options all somewhat fatal or with the concept of being able to select…

The way I see it is pretty straightforward: my life, my decision. That suicide and euthanasia are illegal is illogical to me; it just seems like a way for life insurance companies to avoid paying.

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#229

Post by greendragon »

emodendroket wrote: post #184
kuschku wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And again others just accept that their death will have come to them, they’ll sort their lives out, tie up loose ends, and, feeling they’ve done everything worth doing, having lived a fulfilling life, just embrace death. Cryonics is a very risky, and, with current technology, likely unreversable procedure, so relying on it to tie up your loose ends someday is silly. It’s almost religious in the unreasonable belief th…

I think a "secular religion" is exactly the best frame through which to understand transhumanism.

Not really: https://web.archive.org/web/20140425185111/http://www.accele...

Re: I'm choosing euthanasia etd 1pm. I have no last words.

#230

Post by yourapostasy »

wtracy wrote: post #163
fsloth wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty obvious to me most people debating how unethical euthanasia is have no exposure to needlessly prolonged suffering or just favor dogmatic cruelty over humane treatment of people. The kind of folks who think mother Theresa was a saint with her horror houses of suffering.

It amazes me how many people will favor putting a suffering animal out of its misery, then fight tooth and nail against offering that same mercy to their fellow human beings.

In many cases, it's social virtue signalling, with no real sapience behind the actions.

See how virtuous I am empathizing with lower-order animals' suffering.

See how virtuous I am championing the sanctity of human life.

A lot of the latter can be mitigated: make those who want human life preserved "at all costs" pay cash-over-the-barrel into that "at all costs" effort, on an individual basis. Voluntary, elective euthanasia becomes an option when no one steps up to pay for the extraordinary efforts. They either withdraw their opinion immediately when they can no longer externalize their social virtue signalling choice's costs onto everyone else, or they go broke very soon and those who are suffering can make a free choice.

Or we can pursue the sane choice and legislate elective assisted euthanasia with safeguards like Switzerland's or other rationally-chosen parameters. It is long past time to recognize that our medical technology has far outstripped our ability to reliably deliver an acceptably high quality of life.

Post reply on HN