Live data from Hacker News

We Need to Die

willllliam.com

91–100 of 190 posts

Re: We Need to Die

#91
post #76
post #45

For me, the biggest tell was how frequently older people report feeling completely at peace and ready to die. As my own life progressed, the feeling of novelty became harder to find, and then less important. Grief became easier, death became lighter. As I deepened my investigation into the nature of my own experience, I started to realize that "I" do not exist in the way that I originally assumed, and I started to wo…

> For me, the biggest tell was how frequently older people report feeling completely at peace and ready to die. That's because it's inevitable and at that point they've been sick or infirm for years to decades. No one has run the real experiment because they can't: put that person in the body of a healthy 20 year old and see if they still feel that way. Except we already kind of know the answer because we regard bein…

> That's because it's inevitable and at that point they've been sick or infirm for years to decades.

Maybe, maybe not. Either way, the experiment would be interesting indeed.

Re: We Need to Die

#92

Bah, nah, I’ll take immortality thanks. I want to see where it all goes. I do think there’s a risk of societal stagnation if we all stick around forever. But, maybe we can make a deal—if we all end up immortal, we can make a threshold, maybe even as young as 80 or something, and have people retire and stop voting at that point. Let society stay vivacious, sure. Give us an end point for our toils, definitely, and a de…

> Put us in computers. We’ll stick around as digital ancestor spirits. Just to see how it goes. It's cute to think that simply creating some digital representation of us would be a solution to such a problem when one of the founders of the internet has spoken at length about the dangers of hardware compatibility and media obsolescence putting much of today's data at risk from being inaccessible tomorrow.[0] Nothing,…

If my files could beg for their lives to be kept up-to-date with new storage media, I probably wouldn't have lost so many over time.

Re: We Need to Die

#93
post #45

For me, the biggest tell was how frequently older people report feeling completely at peace and ready to die. As my own life progressed, the feeling of novelty became harder to find, and then less important. Grief became easier, death became lighter. As I deepened my investigation into the nature of my own experience, I started to realize that "I" do not exist in the way that I originally assumed, and I started to wo…

that seems like a circular justification if my body and mind were falling apart and all my friends/family went before me maybe I'd be ready... but I see that as a huge argument in favor of immortality since I want people I care about to be alive and healthy

justification for/of what?

Re: We Need to Die

#94
This comment section is for some reason filled with truly incredulous takes, with many seemingly all too willingly embracing the inevitability of personal oblivion awaiting us at the end of our lives. I wonder what solace it brings to entertain the paradox of dying as a way to bring life meaning, and where it ranks between whatever the local pastor or suburb's heroin dealer are peddling.

I suspect our education system is at fault. Too many children in the modern western society grow up completely isolated from philosophical thinking and the teachings of both ancient as contemporary philosophers. As a consequence they never get exposure to the various deep, tragic, hilarious, and most-of-all diverse ways that we as humans have tried to build meaning into our fleeting lives, triumphant or struggling.

To me, this quote from the article best showcases the status quo:

> And here's what I've been circling around: I think the only reason any of this is true is because of death. Without that horizon, we could defer everything indefinitely.

If you agree with that, I cannot stop you. But maybe I can shake you just a little with a different, more individualistic viewpoint:

Whatever life you have, in whatever circumstances, is the one and only life that you do have. The way it has been is the only way that it can ever be, but the future is whatever you make of it, and it cannot be anything else.

Whatever you experience in life, is all that there is to experience. If you yourself don't climb a mountain, you will never know what climbing that mountain is like. And if you hear a tree fall in a forest but then forget about it, it no longer has made a sound.

Nobody else can do this experiencing for you: much like you didn't directly experience your parents' lives, your children won't directly experience yours. But as long as you yourself are alive, you get to experience your parents and children through the only single way that you can: through yourself.

And so to accept death for yourself is to accept the end of all experience that has ever been. It is to accept death not only yourself, but also for your parents, children, all the climbed mountains and sounds of fallen trees, and all life and the universe itself. For once the one singular entity in the entire universe that has been capable of experiencing is gone, it's as if nothing had ever existed.

So try to stick around and keep experiencing? There really isn't, and hasn't ever been, anything else.

Post-mortem survivalists may disagree.

Re: We Need to Die

#95

This is like worrying about the sun going supernova after you've just discovered fire. Yes, eventually Earth will be reduced to a blackened cinder. And yes, if humans managed to live forever, there would be unforeseen (maybe bad) consequences. If I get to live to 200, I still won't worry about it. If I get to live to 1,000, maybe I might start to think about it. Fortunately, by then, I will have had 1,000 years of ex…

> And that's the real problem for the nay-sayers. They know that they don't have to live forever if they don't want to. They just don't want other people to live forever. They want to live in a world where other people die. If one can make a good argument that people living forever would have too many downsides in the long run, one might reasonably not want others to live forever. This is similar to environmental pol…

Sure, I agree with that. But at that point it becomes a philosophical/ethical argument: should we allow certain people to die (or even kill them) to benefit others?

There was a time (not even that long ago) when 50% of kids died before the age of 5. I can totally imagine people saying back then that this was the "natural order of things" and that allowing every kid to live would be disastrous to the environment.

My philosophy is that we should allow (and even enable) people to live as long as they want. I wish that were not controversial, but here we are.

Re: We Need to Die

#96
post #5

I've had this (often drunken) conversation many times, I think mortality is fundamentally ingrained in not just the human condition, but the fabric of our universe. Without the finality of death, life seems to lose its meaning. Not only do we need to die, we are compelled to die, we should die. This memento mori makes every day, ironically, worth living. One of my favorite verses from the Bible is Job 1:21, where he…

> mortality is fundamentally ingrained in not just the human condition, but the fabric of our universe

church fathers say that creation fell because of the fall of man

> Without the finality of death, life seems to lose its meaning. Not only do we need to die, we are compelled to die, we should die

deadlines help. the soul is eternal and there is a deadline for the body

> [Job] somehow reconciles this tragic finality with transcendent faith

he later falls into despair when things get worse, who wouldn’t, but he is made well after he is humbled. this golden moment of humility forges him into a true person, winning him heaven not death

“If you die before you die, then when you die you won’t die.“ Death to the world is the last true rebellion.[1]

[1]: https://deathtotheworld.com

Re: We Need to Die

#97
post #17

Bah, nah, I’ll take immortality thanks. I want to see where it all goes. I do think there’s a risk of societal stagnation if we all stick around forever. But, maybe we can make a deal—if we all end up immortal, we can make a threshold, maybe even as young as 80 or something, and have people retire and stop voting at that point. Let society stay vivacious, sure. Give us an end point for our toils, definitely, and a de…

As I said in another comment, I'm against immortality because old people need to make way for new generations. But this comment is cute. I like the idea that we'd be there and we're able to see how people are doing, but we're not influencing the world anymore. Though I could also imagine at some point it could become depressing in bad times when there's nothing you can do, or boring after tens of thousands of years o…

Impossible to know if there is something like Sheol after death, so we thought, "why not make our own eternal emptiness?"

Re: We Need to Die

#98
post #17

Bah, nah, I’ll take immortality thanks. I want to see where it all goes. I do think there’s a risk of societal stagnation if we all stick around forever. But, maybe we can make a deal—if we all end up immortal, we can make a threshold, maybe even as young as 80 or something, and have people retire and stop voting at that point. Let society stay vivacious, sure. Give us an end point for our toils, definitely, and a de…

As I said in another comment, I'm against immortality because old people need to make way for new generations. But this comment is cute. I like the idea that we'd be there and we're able to see how people are doing, but we're not influencing the world anymore. Though I could also imagine at some point it could become depressing in bad times when there's nothing you can do, or boring after tens of thousands of years o…

> old people need to make way for new generations

The main problem with extended lifespan will not be that some people will amass extreme wealth and power while living centuries, and they'll oppress the younger generations, who will not have a fair chance in life.

The much more likely problem will be that old people will not adjust to the new technologies. Lots of them will be victims to "pig butchering" schemes. Or they'll simply be illiterate in the new ways of life. If medicine makes tremendous progress, we might end up with a good chunk of our society being elderly, healthy, but socially unadjusted and estranged. Especially with more and more people being childless. Imagine someone who is 110 years old, with no living relatives, secluded in a nursing home, not knowing how to use the internet, or whatever the equivalent of that will be at that point in time.

These people deserve pity. But to they need to "make way for new generations"? That feels a bit eugenic to me.

Re: We Need to Die

#99

Bah, nah, I’ll take immortality thanks. I want to see where it all goes. I do think there’s a risk of societal stagnation if we all stick around forever. But, maybe we can make a deal—if we all end up immortal, we can make a threshold, maybe even as young as 80 or something, and have people retire and stop voting at that point. Let society stay vivacious, sure. Give us an end point for our toils, definitely, and a de…

whenever I imagine immortality en masse I imagine the hobbies that people started experimenting with after exposure to the concept of deathlessness in the short story 'The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect'.

that story is flawed for a lot of reasons, but it's interesting to explore what happens if death is essentially conquered.

it's hard to judge whether or not society as depicted in that story stagnated.. but it was wholly different.

Re: We Need to Die

#100
If it wasn't necessary it wouldn't have been selected for, having nothing to do with the philosophical or spiritual significance. Those species that didn't age became extinct because their genetic pools were too slow and stagnant to adapt to environmental circumstances or non-adaptive altogether. Both of which are terminal at the species level. Evolution doesn't favor the survival of the fittest individual. It favors the continuation of life, generally.

That's been my concern; that solving mortality for individuals might be a death sentence for the species.

Post reply on HN