[deleted]
Immortality vs. Society (2016)
61–70 of 101 posts
Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've turned a parent's very minor point (literally only mentioned in parentheses!) into a mountain bigger than Mount Everest. That says a lot about you, but not much about parenting.
I made no attempt at making a point about parenting. The post I replied to said they wanted to have children for the experience and because their "body was designed to", essentially. The latter is just an appeal to nature. We can choose whether or not to procreate. Rather, I made the point that I'd love to ask just one parent why they chose to have a child and have the answer not start w/ "Because I wanted..."
Doesn't any question that starts with "why did you choose to do X" expect an answer that starts with "Because I wanted..."?
It is the part that comes after that matters. "Because I wanted someone else to experience the joy I experience every day" is a very different answer than "Because I needed someone to make me feel like I'm important."
Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)
#63> For what? For nothing, just because. Don’t seek a rational explanation, you won’t find it. It doesn’t exist. Having a child is type of experience and commitment that has no parallel in any domain of life. It shapes you in certain ways if you are devoted to it. I want to be that type of person because I recognize some qualities that I admire (like being way less self-centric). My body is designed so that it can do t…
Your body isn't designed to do anything. We are like viruses in the sense of whatever works, works. While folks who don't reproduce are summarily eliminated from the gene pool. Not because they don't have value, but because they don't 'work'. The fact that you find having children fulfilling is about you, not about anybody else.
> Your body isn't designed to do anything.
Yes it is. Without procreation species can't exist, so it must be designed to procreate. The process takes quite a lot of energy which is precious to all forms of life and there are all sorts of mechanisms in place to make you wanna do that. Design.
> The fact that you find having children fulfilling is about you, not about anybody else.
Everything is first about you. Its illusion that some things look like they aren't on frontend.
Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)
#64> For what? For nothing, just because. Don’t seek a rational explanation, you won’t find it. It doesn’t exist. Having a child is type of experience and commitment that has no parallel in any domain of life. It shapes you in certain ways if you are devoted to it. I want to be that type of person because I recognize some qualities that I admire (like being way less self-centric). My body is designed so that it can do t…
I'm curious if you're able to think of one non-selfish reason to have children? You mention having a child is an experience in which you wish to take part; you relish the thought of being less self-centered. Too little weight is given to the fact that no consciousness exists because it has willed itself into existence. Put another way, nothing consents to being given life. A feeling mind will come into being, suffer…
> you relish the thought of being less self-centered.
Just mentioned one example really...
> I'm curious if you're able to think of one non-selfish reason to have children?
I am curious if you are able to think on non-selfish anything?
> Often, it's said having a child is an act of selflessness
Nonsence. It is what it is. Anything you say that is not gonig to explain animal and other forms or life is invalid.
> Adopting a child is the most selfless thing you can do
Compensation, so no.
> The OP's blog post is surmising it's because we procreate to achieve some tangible sense of immortality
He said people usually say that, not that it is a sole reason. He also said there isn't any rational explanation. I just given one - I am designed to do so.
Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)
#65I would give so much to live in a society where people like Aubrey de Gray are heroes like Elon Musk is in ours. The fact that people die does not have to be immutable fate. We look back at people seeking the fountain of youth or the philosophers stone with sneering contempt but at least they had the right goal. Our acquiescence of death is the greatest tragedy ever and collectively we ought to be ashamed of ourselve…
Most of society does view the people who save lives as heroes, along with those who have improved the quality of life, or contributed significantly to the eradication of war or disease. The amount of people to whom Elon Musk is a hero is negligible in comparison. So at least you've got that.
Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)
#66> For what? For nothing, just because. Don’t seek a rational explanation, you won’t find it. It doesn’t exist. Having a child is type of experience and commitment that has no parallel in any domain of life. It shapes you in certain ways if you are devoted to it. I want to be that type of person because I recognize some qualities that I admire (like being way less self-centric). My body is designed so that it can do t…
> My body is designed so that it can do this. Hence, not having children is against the design.
Your body is also designed to age and die, by the way. What is the reason to follow that design, anyway? Why not change it to serve your own interests better?
> I do want to have a health span (not life span)
So why exactly would you like to die?
Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)
#67Wow, the author must be a bit depressed or something. I don't even know where to start. > If I’m going to cease to exist, it doesn’t matter what would be in a world without me. Oh yeah, egoism at its best lol. If I die, why shouldn't everyone else? > children make a human a slave of circumstances for at least 15 years. For what? For nothing, just because. Okay... He is also realizing that children are not his "helper…
> Oh yeah, egoism at its best lol. If I die, why shouldn't everyone else? Why not consider it from an alternative, less demonizing perspective? The author might simply be pointing out the fact that no matter how nice the things that you'd leave behind you would be, you won't be around to experience them. Therefore, it would be in your interest to actually... you know, not die. > Okay I am out. You really should get h…
> The author might simply be pointing out the fact that no matter how nice the things that you'd leave behind you would be, you won't be around to experience them. Therefore, it would be in your interest to actually... you know, not die.
And that is exactly what I meant.
Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)
#68Didn't expect to see this here. Anyway, if anyone has any questions...
Also I gotta find a better CMS for that blog. And ditch Disqus because it was bought by an ad company.
Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)
#69I would give so much to live in a society where people like Aubrey de Gray are heroes like Elon Musk is in ours. The fact that people die does not have to be immutable fate. We look back at people seeking the fountain of youth or the philosophers stone with sneering contempt but at least they had the right goal. Our acquiescence of death is the greatest tragedy ever and collectively we ought to be ashamed of ourselve…
Immortality would be spitting in the face of humanity. A race of immortals has no need) or very little need) for children. Such a society would be joyless and without vitality, without the “firsts” that happen only once in a lifetime no matter how long you live. People imagine that life extension would mean that people would have time to see the world, to read every book, etc. But that’s not what makes most people ha…
Please feel free to transfer to me all the years of your life you dont want
Re: Immortality vs. Society (2016)
#70People treat happiness as a good unto itself. Why? "People like being happy"? That's circular. "There's no other point to life"? So? Desire for immortality reads as a cope. You have picked a goal in life that is truly pointless. You recognize that. You therefore want to compensate by trying to get as much of it as you can. Unfortunately, you can't compensate for pointlessness with volume. (Just as you can't compensat…
You're just as much treating procreation as a good unto itself, and couching it rhetoric about "unborn people" that quite literally don't exist, and as such don't desire existence.