231–240 of 347 posts
Great article, thanks for sharing this. I have a question: how would you tell your so to "move on" after you are gone? Was this even brought up ? I'd imagine this to be a very difficult, yet necessary conversation to have.
Inspiring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Death is not a part of life, it is its destruction. Life and death are part of the same simultaneous process. For a living thing to grow, it must die at the same time. Death is life's change agent. "Controlled death of cells is as much a part of embryonal development as is cell proliferation and differentiation." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8801138
But, do you agree that the part where the whole human mind (not just some cells) has to die---a soul annihilated permanently---is not really a good thing, even if it happens to be the state we find nature in?
i like to hope that i will never die because by the time i age humanity would have evolved to the point of curing all forms of cancer and extending life past 100 years of age.
Progress doesn't occur by itself. If we won't develop the necessary technology (or help, or incentivize development) it won't magically show up by the time it is needed for you or for me. For OP and many others it didn't.
This whole thread reeks of death acceptance culture. HN readers show off how cool they are for accepting death instead of discussing how we as a tech community could help cure these diseases or at least give more people an option of being cryopreserved. The really unpleasant truth is that if we as a society began doing serious focused R&D on these life-threatening diseases earlier, the OP and many others wouldn't hav…
I find this anger against death weird. We are alive because we are not death. Death is part of our lives and we should accept it without the drama, just like Peter is doing.
This whole thread reeks of death acceptance culture. HN readers show off how cool they are for accepting death instead of discussing how we as a tech community could help cure these diseases or at least give more people an option of being cryopreserved. The really unpleasant truth is that if we as a society began doing serious focused R&D on these life-threatening diseases earlier, the OP and many others wouldn't hav…
I find this anger against death weird. We are alive because we are not death. Death is part of our lives and we should accept it without the drama, just like Peter is doing.
Of course you do, because accepting death is a huge part of our culture, a part we developed to make coping easier. It's hard to think differently from how you have been taught to.
>Death is part of our lives and we should accept it without the drama
Who says that and for what purpose (who benefits from status quo) ? Note that death isn't even a law of physics, it's just a consequence of our biological structure and our genetic makeup. Many organisms live much shorter lives than humans, but some live 3-10x longer than us (For example Arctica Islandica clamshell lives >400 years, Bowhead Whales and Koi fish live ~200 years, Pinus longaeva trees live up to 5000 years). These are scientific facts.
Then, there are genetic engineering experiments [1] that produce C. Elegans nematodes that live 5x longer lives than wild ones. There are less dramatic but positive results for mice.
Humans aren't special, it means that some future variants of these techniques could be applied to humans either to produce longer-living individuals or to increase lifespan of existing ones.
If you still think that someone's life is not worth extending you are simply being amoral. Please decide such important matters only for yourself and not for others. I'm sure there are more than enough humans that would prefer to extend their lives.
1. Germline signaling mediates the synergistically prolonged longevity produced by double mutations in daf-2 and rsks-1 in C. elegans. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24332851
He seems to have accepted his fate but you still have to wonder if there isn't an immunotherapy treatment that would work for him. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/persona... 91 year old former President Jimmy Carter had brain cancer and was recently treated with it and he was cured. https://www.mskcc.org/blog/understanding-jimmy-carter-s-surp... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/…
> but you still have to wonder if there isn't an immunotherapy treatment that would work for him. In the context of this article, no, I don't have to wonder. He expresses very well why he doesn't want to entertain such longshots.
That point-blank saved his life. The cancer was gone within 4 months; he's been cancer free for 5 years. His younger brother was not so lucky, lung cancer (heavy smoker), he didn't last long after diagnosis.
Anyway, the OP isn't looking for miracles, he's preparing for his departure, in a beautiful and dignified manner -- totally respect the choice, but longshots are not the same odds they used to be wrt to cancer treatments, even stage 4.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am from the Netherlands. Euthanasia is legal here, although strictly regulated (as I think it should be by the way, this is not the sort of choice that should be taken or approved lightly by anyone involved). Several doctors had to sign off on it, and they were thorough in making sure that this was his decision alone and that nobody around him was "pushing" him into it. Fortunately (if you can call it that), his me…
For those wondering what the typical regulations consist of, I found the following article doing a quick google search: >> In all jurisdictions, the request for euthanasia or pas has to be voluntary, well-considered, informed, and persistent over time. The requesting person must provide explicit written consent and must be competent at the time the request is made. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/…
My hope is that in the majority of those cases the paperwork either just didn't get finished in time, or that the subject in some way did actually want this but started the process too late to be clearly of their own decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, do you agree that the part where the whole human mind (not just some cells) has to die---a soul annihilated permanently---is not really a good thing, even if it happens to be the state we find nature in?
It's absolutely a good thing. We need some of our cells to die as our tissues develop, society needs people to die in order to develop. A society without death would be a stagnant hell.
I think it's an incredibly pessimistic view of humanity to suggest social change can only come about through death.
Moreover, I think this argument tends to come solely from people trying to excuse death, rather than any kind of reasonable analysis.