A Protocol for Dying • Hacker News Board

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#261

Post by swombat » Fri, Apr 22, 2016, 6:07 PM UTC

slavik81 wrote: post #173

Neslit wrote: 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).

I think most people, including myself, would like to live forever. Whether achieving that is desirable or not is a larger discussion than I have time for, but I will say that if you take a broader perspective of the self, then death is not quite as sharp and painful as it first appears. As Peter says, "[my children] will grow up with me in their DNA, on Youtube as endless conference talks, and in writing." I think th…

> I will say that if you take a broader perspective of the self, then death is not quite as sharp and painful as it first appears.

A statement that I agree with, but which is of course meaningless to those who are filled with a total dread of death... Unfortunately this is one of those things that can't really be communicated. "You have to figure it out for yourself", etc...

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#262

Post by throwaway324324 » Fri, Apr 22, 2016, 6:08 PM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #239

throwaway324324 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/…

It would be relevant to know, of the 'involuntary' numbers, how many of those were statutory involuntary and for what reasons. 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.

So you're essentially hoping that these people, who did not give explicit consent, actually (and perhaps secretly) did want to be killed?

My hope is that where paperwork did go through, no person was uncertain or regretted their life-altering decision (which, for example, increases suicide risk in one's family twofold). But I doubt that either of our hopes lives up to reality.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#263

Post by Neslit » Fri, Apr 22, 2016, 6:10 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #211

Neslit wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, I think it is extremely unlikely people will figure out thousand-year lifespans. Why? Do you think this would withstand a thousand years of human ingenuity? I'm confused where you're getting this very confident prediction. It also still seems to me that long lifespans are extremely desirable, albeit difficult to obtain, and I'm not sure whether you agree. This is relevant because if we want to decide e.g. where…

I can't know what anyone's motivations are, but I can feel pretty confident that they are selling false hope based on bogus science.

This is genuinely not obvious to me. What convinced you of this? Or, what do you think the world would look like if there were people who actually had a strong, reasonable, non-insane suspicion that they could do the things that cryonics people claim to be able to? To me, it looks like we are living in that world. Have you e.g. looked through the information, studies, and arguments on the Alcor website?

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#264

Post by blackrose » Fri, Apr 22, 2016, 6:12 PM UTC

maxwelljoslyn wrote: post #93

anonymous777 wrote: post #84

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…

Wouldn't that be lovely? I wish that the immediate reaction by most people to such a thing wasn't something preposterous like "death is natural." Yeah? So? We are not beaten in the heads with rubber mallets every day at noon. If aliens showed up and proposed that we adopt the rubber-mallet system for no benefit, we'd call them crazy.[1] Yet death, which is completely real, is treated as something not even worth attem…

I wish that the immediate reaction by most people to such a thing wasn't something preposterous like "let's cure death before we all die." Death has already arrived, exists for all natural beings on our planet, and has existed for millions of years. We don't need to wait for it to show up with rubber mallets.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#265

Post by Neslit » Fri, Apr 22, 2016, 6:20 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #261

slavik81 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people, including myself, would like to live forever. Whether achieving that is desirable or not is a larger discussion than I have time for, but I will say that if you take a broader perspective of the self, then death is not quite as sharp and painful as it first appears. As Peter says, "[my children] will grow up with me in their DNA, on Youtube as endless conference talks, and in writing." I think th…

> I will say that if you take a broader perspective of the self, then death is not quite as sharp and painful as it first appears. A statement that I agree with, but which is of course meaningless to those who are filled with a total dread of death... Unfortunately this is one of those things that can't really be communicated. "You have to figure it out for yourself", etc...

>filled with a total dread of death

I'm not sure I've successfully communicated my feeling about this. It's less like a total dread of death and more like a total dread of losing life, if that makes any sense.

Do you have any close loved ones---a younger brother, a daughter, a close friend? Anyone for whom you might consider sacrificing yourself; anyone who you believe to be a shining light unto the world. Say that person is eaten by cancer. Once they are dead, they feel no pain; this is clear to me, and is not central in my judgement.

What is central is the lost blossoming of a mind. A rich internal experience, a reflective world with joy, dreams, and curiosity, is not a thing that should be destroyed. A mind that wishes to continue seeing the world and its people, and other minds wishing that mind to continue shining its light, annihilated---don't look away from the pain! If you look away from the pain, you lose your already slim opportunity to fight back.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#266

Post by okreallywtf » Fri, Apr 22, 2016, 6:25 PM UTC

One thing that I observed the year I lost two great uncles (one from one side of the family and six months later one from the other) to cancer was how easy it is for the closest family to get very tied up in the logistics and medical side that people weren't really taking as much time to really talk to them. Granted they weren't considered terminal until close to the end.

As the younger nephew, I didn't feel as much responsibility to be involved with the logistics (it felt more awkward to me but I think it was comforting to the children, spouses etc). So instead of joining in on the doctor/prognosis conversations and later the funeral arrangement/what to do with the house stuff, I just sat and talked to my uncles instead.

I had known both of them my entire life but I realized I knew almost nothing about them. All our interactions were just uncle to nephew, family occasions kind of stuff, but by this time I was an adult (just barely), and all the sudden we were just two people talking and I learned more about them in a 20 minute session than the prior 20+ years. Some other family who were on the periphery of the conversation confided later that they regretted not having those moments while they had the chance. I didn't even talk that much, just enough to make it a two way conversation, but I found my uncles both were very at peace but wanted to reminisce and tell stories they probably hadn't told anyone in decades. One uncle told me about joining the military during Korea and having gone through all the training and finally being sent all the way there to have the war end practically the day he got there and he ended up being sent right back and what a strange conflicted experience it was for him.

I've started visiting with my other elderly family a lot more since then and have had some similar conversations that didn't require anyone being terminally ill, but somehow that seems to make those conversations a little easier.

I can definitely agree with the piece, especially about what to say and what not to. I'm not expert by any means, I just did the only thing that felt natural whatsoever: just talk to them like a person and let what happens happen. Granted I had the benefit of the fact that they were well taken care of by their children and others, otherwise it would have been much more difficult.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#267

Post by bastijn » Fri, Apr 22, 2016, 6:27 PM UTC

I actually wanted to attend that keynote and now you popup over here. Thought it would be a nice day, some friends / colleagues presenting anyway. Somehow my brain wandered off reading this article thinking what would have happened if you could have presented this blog post as a keynote. How would the audience react, would it differ from this where people have more time to digest it? Definitely some awkward social event afterwards I'd bet.

Only thing I missed in your post is a snappy remark to alternative medicine (not expiremental, mind you); would have made it perfect. That stuff usually conflicts with the actual treatment and even if it doesn't and people survive they say it is because of the alternative junk instead of the actual treatment they conveniently forget to mention they took as well. You know, these sites that claim it's true and proven linking to multiple studies showing it...performed by themselves and published on their own website only.

I wish you the most with the time you have left but have no doubt you will make it count.

Well, one thing left.

This is Bob.

Bob is dying.

Bob doesn't whine or bitch about life being unfair.

Bob is one tough motherf*er.

Be like Bob.

.O

-|-

./\

P.s. If you think the stick figure sucks you should see my real drawings.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#268

Post by Neslit » Fri, Apr 22, 2016, 6:37 PM UTC

cr1895 wrote: post #204

Neslit wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we would be better off if no one died (Clarification: I think we'd obviously be better off if no one involuntarily died.) I don't think I've been hasty in my thinking. What is the most central concern that you have about life as a good thing? There are deep unsolved problems around long life. E.g., how do you grow as a mind that has existed for 4,000 years? A normal human mind would probably not be able to handle th…

I'm struggling to think of how to reply. This topic is both hard if not impossible to grapple and fascinating to think about. I keep going off into mental tangents about our place (and insignifigance) in the incomprehensibly huge cosmos and how you can so easily say that we humans, who have been dieing along with every other living thing for all of our collective existence, that somehow we should strive to eradicate…

>Life and death are complementary

Hm, I hear people say this a lot, but I genuinely can't empathize with where they are coming from. This is a blank spot in my map. Could you say more about the intuition behind this statement, and why this makes death seems desirable or less bad?

To illustrate how I emotionally parse the statement "Life and death are complementary", I want to make a possibly distressing analogy, so apologies in advance, and:

TRIGGER WARNING...

...

TRIGGER WARNING: abstract discussion of rape

...

That statement reads to me like:

"Being raped and not being raped are complementary. Members of higher animal species rape each other in the natural course of life, and humans have committed rape throughout history. Rape is a part of nature, so it is foolish to think that we humans could or should eliminate rape forever."

This is an obviously abhorrent position, and I genuinely don't see much of a difference talking about death instead. Clearly horrible thing is clearly horrible.

Again, I am absolutely not trying to imply you are evil, or thinking inside my head that you are evil, or anything remotely like that; I am just trying to convey how I kneejerk-emotionally react to your statement about life and death, in case it helps you say things to me that will cause me to understand where you are coming from.

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#269

Post by alanwatts » Fri, Apr 22, 2016, 6:43 PM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #228

laotzu wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define sentient entities

Do you think there's a point to be made in the detail of the distinction? My point is that death sucks, and when I say that, I'm talking about children crying because they can't see granny any more. Talking about cell death is a distraction.

Those crying children couldn't exist if their grandparents and their grandparents down the line never died. There wouldn't be enough food or resources to sustain indefinite existence for everyone who wants it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecophagy

Re: A Protocol for Dying

#270

Post by Neslit » Fri, Apr 22, 2016, 6:43 PM UTC

shopkins wrote: post #257

Neslit wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I really like living, mainly because there's a lot of awesome stuff to do and see and build, stories to tell, people to be with, etc. The logical next step is that I don't want to die, at least any time soon or involuntarily. Avoiding death may be difficult, but it seems rather sad to just give up; and anyway, say what you will about humans, but we are pretty goddamn clever occasionally. So it seems quite…

Except we're not machines. "You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else," as Tyler Durden would say. Some might say the next logical step isn't to wish to live forever, but to die, and hope your genes and ideas live on. We're not the eternal ones in this universe, no matter how big our capacity to wish for that.

>Except we're not machines.

I only mean that we're machines enough so that medical techniques work. We are made of parts that break and can be fixed. This is on extremely solid empirical footing.

>Some might say the next logical step isn't to wish to live forever, but to die, and hope your genes and ideas live on. We're not the eternal ones in this universe, no matter how big our capacity to wish for that.

Do you say that? I wish to live a very long time, and I wish the same for my loved ones and anyone who wants. I would keep wishing this even if it were an impossible wish. Also, it happens to probably not be impossible.