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

At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 287 posts

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#31

Post by knorker »

gus_massa wrote: post #30
biolurker1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the argument is this: certain death vs a miniscule one in a quadrillion chance or lower. It will always tilt the other way no matter what the current scientific status quo is saying because it's possible in theory and it has happened to living organisms before just not humans. Whether it's good for environment, your siblings pocket etc is not part of the core argument.

Or give the money to your children so they have a small head start that can use to conquer the world (eventually). Also, what happens if you are revived? Where are you going to live? Your home was probably sold a long time ago, or you must share it with all the intermediate revived generations. What about money? Where are you going to work? Imagine the frozen time was only 100 year. It is difficult to predict what wi…

So what?

You're saying life is not worth living if you're not at least middle class with no big struggles?

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#32

Post by knorker »

NateEag wrote: post #6
biolurker1 wrote: post #3

I wish more people would learn about cryonics. It's either 0 or something above zero probability.

I have not seen a reason to think cryonics will work at all. Even if we actually do find a way to restore frozen near-death people to life, you'd better write a heck of a pitch as to why future humans should spend resources on reviving and healing you. Never mind all the resources being spent on keeping you properly frozen all that time. That's all assuming the company running your freezer doesn't just go belly-up af…

They should revive you because you paid for it.

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#33

Post by Retric »

Juliate wrote: post #28
fipar wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think even if you ignore the environment, and cost, the argument for cryonics is not very good. Let's say someone is successfully revived, there's still heart attacks, cancer, crime (and not just "lowly" criminals, crime also happens within families for inheritance, for example), accidents (car, or just slipping in the shower), earthquakes, ... The list is pretty much endless. Death is unavoidable, IMHO it's best t…

Yes, if only for the legal status of property/inheritance: if you are to be revided, who owns your wealth? Do you children inherit? And/when you are revived, what resources do you have? Is your family/descendants in charge of you, or you of them?

Cryogenic preservation is treated like mummification, you’re just declared dead. At which point your assets are likely to just get spent.

If you want to be safe, set up a trust that pays to you preferably and if not then to any descendants you have. That’s unlikely to work if you’re somehow revived in several hundred years, but it’s better than hopping random people will hand you money voluntarily.

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#34

Post by johnnujler »

podgaj wrote: post #12

The worst time to start thinking about death is when you are facing it. So let me tell you after thinking about this for the last 50 plus years; There is no birth so there is no death. You think there is birth and death, but it is just a thought. To be alive means you would have had to be dead already for am infinite amount of time before your birth, so what are you scared of? Maybe we are "dead" right now, and this…

How do you conflate not existing before birth to not existing after death? Comparing cosmic duration to one's lifespan is not the same thing. It might sound very profound, but it is not, believe me.

Also, I don't think you are 50+. You seem like a young kid who has just read some pop-philosophy to me. Anyone who has had a life-threatening experience or a grave illness will tell you that philosophical solace that is existential in nature does not carry well(See: PsychoNeurosis in patients with grave illness), that is why most people resort to things that provide them happiness in this lifetime and to things like mindfulness, being in present etc.

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#35

Post by cryptica »

NateEag wrote: post #6
biolurker1 wrote: post #3

I wish more people would learn about cryonics. It's either 0 or something above zero probability.

I have not seen a reason to think cryonics will work at all. Even if we actually do find a way to restore frozen near-death people to life, you'd better write a heck of a pitch as to why future humans should spend resources on reviving and healing you. Never mind all the resources being spent on keeping you properly frozen all that time. That's all assuming the company running your freezer doesn't just go belly-up af…

So true. Even in the best case scenario if they manage to revive you perpetually, the universe will eventually end and then you'll be there to experience it... For someone who is afraid of dying, I can't think of a worse way to go.

To an atheist, uncertainty is the source of all hope.

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#36

Post by biolurker1 »

fipar wrote: post #16
biolurker1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the argument is this: certain death vs a miniscule one in a quadrillion chance or lower. It will always tilt the other way no matter what the current scientific status quo is saying because it's possible in theory and it has happened to living organisms before just not humans. Whether it's good for environment, your siblings pocket etc is not part of the core argument.

I think even if you ignore the environment, and cost, the argument for cryonics is not very good. Let's say someone is successfully revived, there's still heart attacks, cancer, crime (and not just "lowly" criminals, crime also happens within families for inheritance, for example), accidents (car, or just slipping in the shower), earthquakes, ... The list is pretty much endless. Death is unavoidable, IMHO it's best t…

The argument is zero vs non-zero and anything else is noise

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#37

Post by robviren »

Having just turned 31 this hits home. I appreciate the positivity he could find in the twilight of his days. I can't help but feel I may lack the courage to face death the same way. His focus on gratitude really does seem to match what I understand to be the best way to find joy in the often bleak life we find ourselves in. There is almost always someone or something to appreciate in our lives.

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#38

Post by biolurker1 »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #17
biolurker1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the argument is this: certain death vs a miniscule one in a quadrillion chance or lower. It will always tilt the other way no matter what the current scientific status quo is saying because it's possible in theory and it has happened to living organisms before just not humans. Whether it's good for environment, your siblings pocket etc is not part of the core argument.

Sound just like the argument for the worship of god.

Organisms have survived thousands of years frozen. God doesn't exist scientifically.

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#39

Post by b34r »

knorker wrote: post #32
NateEag wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not seen a reason to think cryonics will work at all. Even if we actually do find a way to restore frozen near-death people to life, you'd better write a heck of a pitch as to why future humans should spend resources on reviving and healing you. Never mind all the resources being spent on keeping you properly frozen all that time. That's all assuming the company running your freezer doesn't just go belly-up af…

They should revive you because you paid for it.

Finding some 50-300 years in the future that cares might be a problem.

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#40

Post by johnnujler »

podgaj wrote: post #25
sacado2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a well known psychological phenomenon though. Losing a given sum of money is more painful than earning that same amount. if you find a $20 banknote on the sidewalk, you wont be as happy as the guy who lost lost it is pissed off.

What you do not have you cannot become attached to. You can still have something and not be attached to it. That is Buddhism/Daoism in a nutshell.

Did you note that the OP said it is a well known psychological phenomenon and not some utopian enlightened state that most of us can only aspire to attain?

And fwiw, Schopenhauer knew about Buddhism very well and talks about it in length in his essays on pessimism. What he means by attachment here is in fact, the Buddhist equivalent of craving. What you own can add to your vanity, but it is what you do not have or are longing for(in this case more money) that shows your true inclination, which Schopenhauer describes as worth. It does not mean that money has no worth, it means that the money that you already own has way less worth than what you don't. Aphorisms are pithy for a precise reason ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Post reply on HN