This seems to be the argument. I don’t find it compelling it all. Can you help me understand why “tending toward a long view” is valuable? And how is accomplishing and enjoying more things always good indefinitely? I think enjoying and accomplishing things is cool, but I’d imagine there are some diminishing returns on almost anything.
A longer term view is valuable because it would decrease things like “it’s OK to pollute, I’ll be dead by the time it gets bad”.
I’m hearing… “death is obviously bad and the only way you could disagree is because you are biased” and “more years can equal more utilons”.
It’s just that many of us don’t see any benefit to involuntary death. (Voluntary death also remains unpopular, even in surprisingly bad circumstances). In fact, I don’t know of any product which is marketed as being superior to another product due to having a shorter lifespan (“Because our product will cease to function unexpectedly, you can enjoy it more now before it does!”), while things like “lifetime guarantee” are routinely praised as positive. I mean, for houses, tools, toys, vehicles, pet animals, longer lifespan == better, and I don’t see why it should be different for my children.
As a thought experiment:
Most people would, if they could, take a pill that eliminated the effects of aging, but causes multiple organ failure at about their original life expectancy. You seem to agree that aging is inconvenient, so I assume you’d take this pill. Would you?
But what if that pill also extended your lifespan indefinitely, as well as curing aging? Not true immortality, of course, since your body would still be susceptible to disease and accident, but it would mean that every year you’re as likely to die as you were last year, ie your chance of dying doesn’t increase with age. Now, there are a lot of people who say death is a good thing. In the interest of pleasing these people, while also providing the elimination of aging, scientists develop a second substance, which causes multiple organ failure at about your expected lifespan. By combining this substance with the immortality pill, they create a cure for aging that does not have immortality as a side-effect. Which of these pills would you prefer, or would you reject both?
Now, if you’re not a consequentialist, the second pill no doubt seems like it has the stigma of suicide, even though its effects are identical to a previous example which perhaps seemed both positive and non-suicidal. This stigma would vanish, even if the pill were identical, if the pills had been developed in reverse order, with the immortality pill being a refinement of the anti-aging pill to remove a substance that causes eventual multiple organ failure. Or perhaps simply the existence of both options would make them both repugnant to you, one because it stinks of suicide, and the other one because you don’t want immortality?
On a different note, there are in fact some legitimate advantages of death by limited lifespan, and some that might be considered both advantageous and disadvantageous. A limited lifespan allows for permanent retirement. Solving death would be a huge problem for the politicians who have to kick people off retirement, with a risk that they’d rather go bankrupt than anger our elderly. A huge chunk of our taxes are estate taxes “aka death tax”. Death is a great equalizer: it will eliminate any specific tyrant and any specific individual who is accumulating “too much” wealth. Making death technically not inevitable would decrease our courage to do dangerous or violent things, such as soldiering, volunteering to test drugs, violent or non-violent resistance to a corrupt regime. The combination of immortal tyrant with decreased opposition from internal resistance or external liberators, is particularly worrisome. Unlimited lifespan will increase procrastination. Death eliminates old people set in their ways from positions of power and authority, making way for new ideas. Death makes all your problems go away or become someone else’s problems. With limited lifespans, you won’t outlive your friends by more than ~100 years. Even with all that, there’s an equally impressive list for the benefits of a longer lifespan, plus I can point to about 7 billion people who think living is better than dying.
As a thought experiment: Most people would, if they could, take a pill that eliminated the effects of aging, but causes multiple organ failure at about their original life expectancy. You seem to agree that aging is inconvenient, so I assume you’d take this pill. Would you?
I think I would, yes.
But what if that pill also extended your lifespan indefinitely, as well as curing aging?
I don’t think so, no.
stigma of suicide
More than a stigma, suicide is very consequential. It’s a deep trauma for many people surrounding the victim. I think it is a net zero for the victim, however.
Overall, I still see the main argument as this: If you lived forever, you’d be able to accumulated ulimited fuzzies and utilons. And that is objectively better than fewer fuzzie and utilons. Therefore, death is bad.
I’m not “for” death. But life is an accident, an unintended side-effect of physical laws and processes. While I think you point out some good practical examples of advantages and disadvantages for the option of immortality, I sense my objections are of a bit different sort.
We, as living things, have evolved to fight to live, and live to fight. You want to live because nature has designed you to want to live. That is it. We glean some pleasure and meaning in the process of fighting/living/surviving, and that is cool. I sense the novelty of this will run out eventually.
Death isn’t a problem. If future AI finds a way (and have some reason) to keep humans alive and torture them for eternity, then that is a big problem.
People all over the globe starving and enduring suffering via war, disease, etc. is a problem.
Aging leading to Alzheimer’s, et al, is a problem.
Death is empty of any value. It is neither good or bad. It isn’t a problem unless ego makes it one.
More than a stigma, suicide is very consequential. It’s a deep trauma for many people surrounding the victim. I think it is a net zero for the victim, however.
It may be zero for you. If you think it should be zero for others too, I’d like to see some reasoning. That I can’t experience death is obvious, but not convincing. If I only valued things I directly experience here and now, I don’t think I could have any plans whatsoever. The fact that my death is a trauma for others also motivates me not to die. Doesn’t it motivate you?
The fact that my death is a trauma for others also motivates me not to die. Doesn’t it motivate you?
Absolutely. But that is a completely separate issue.
However, I sense that is related to some of what is happening when people speak about death in regard to opportunity costs. When mourning the loss of a younger person, it is common to hear people say “S/he had so much potential that now is lost.” I’ve said that before.
But what are we really saying? What did somebody who is no longer conscious or aware in anyway really “lose”?
In reality, and as you point out, we the still living are the one who are losing something. We lose a friend or a family member. We may lose a bit of motivation when confronted with that reminder of our eventual mortality. Or maybe we lose some peace of mind (or add some anxiety) for the same reason.
It isn’t my argument that death isn’t bad for those who keep living. I would argue their loss would be mitigated if (a) the associated negative aspects of death (pain, trauma, aging, disease, etc.) were eliminated and (b) they meditated on the actual, practical implications of death for the deceased.
I’m not sure what would convince you or count as proper reasoning.
It’s basically an opportunity cost argument that is being made against death. That’s fine with me. I guess there isn’t much I can do to rebut that.
Opportunity costs only seem to make sense in terms of their effect on our current conscious experience.
If I chose not to travel after college when I was single and unattached, I might regret that now that I’m settled down and don’t possess that opportunity (or the memories and life experience I would have gained) given my current commitments and obligations.
If I chose not to invest in Google when I had the cash to do so, I rue that decision, since buying that stock would have contributed to all sorts of potential good things in my present and future, and make me feel less anxious right now.
But death negates all such considerations. If I were to snap my finger and you and I would be dead, opportunity costs would be practically absurd to speak of in our cases.
I concede that the math works for immortality—A years x B utilons/fuzzies per year = Total Awesomeness. As long as B is positive, then maximizing A always increases awesomeness, and making A infinite leads to infinite awesomeness.
If I only valued things I directly experience here and now, I don’t think I could have any plans whatsoever.
It is interesting you phrase it that way. I’ll ask in the spirit of Eckhart Tolle: Is there some way you know of to experience value in things outside of here and now?
Opportunity costs only seem to make sense in terms of their effect on our current conscious experience.
Are you sure the problem isn’t unusual use of language?
Is there some way you know of to experience value in things outside of here and now?
I meditate regularly, I know what you mean and the answer to the meaning of your question is no. I also think this kind of a question with this particular intended meaning is abuse of language, and insisting on using common language to describe the insights you’ve gained through meditation mostly yields nonsense. When people say future they mean future, not the present moment and if you insist otherwise you lose information.
I value things not here and now all the time. They’re just not yet here and now and don’t necessarily have to ever be.
Are you sure the problem isn’t unusual use of language?
Please say more about this.
I value things not here and now all the time. They’re just not yet here and now and don’t necessarily have to ever be.
I don’t understand. When is it that you find value in them? In what way can you experience anything, in the future or the past, outside of the present moment? Can you “value” something without “experiencing” it? If so, how do you define the distinction?
I’ll do so tomorrow with a fresh brain. I find my chances of communicating anything useful poor though. Specialized vocabulary would be nice. I suppose mindful religions have that, too bad it’s buried in religious scripture.
The fact that my death is a trauma for others also motivates me not to die. Doesn’t it motivate you?
Absolutely. But that is a completely separate issue.
However, I sense that is related to some of what is happening when people speak about death in regard to opportunity costs. When mourning the loss of a younger person, it is common to hear people say “S/he had so much potential that now is lost.” I’ve said that before.
But what are we really saying? What did somebody who is no longer conscious or aware in anyway really “lose”?
In reality, and as you point out, we the still living are the one who are losing something. We lose a friend or a family member. We may lose a bit of motivation when confronted with that reminder of our eventual mortality. Or maybe we lose some peace of mind (or add some anxiety) for the same reason.
It isn’t my argument that death isn’t bad for those who keep living. I would argue their loss would be mitigated if (a) the associated negative aspects of death (pain, trauma, aging, disease, etc.) were eliminated and (b) they meditated on the actual, practical implications of death for the deceased.
A longer term view is valuable because it would decrease things like “it’s OK to pollute, I’ll be dead by the time it gets bad”.
It’s just that many of us don’t see any benefit to involuntary death. (Voluntary death also remains unpopular, even in surprisingly bad circumstances). In fact, I don’t know of any product which is marketed as being superior to another product due to having a shorter lifespan (“Because our product will cease to function unexpectedly, you can enjoy it more now before it does!”), while things like “lifetime guarantee” are routinely praised as positive. I mean, for houses, tools, toys, vehicles, pet animals, longer lifespan == better, and I don’t see why it should be different for my children.
As a thought experiment: Most people would, if they could, take a pill that eliminated the effects of aging, but causes multiple organ failure at about their original life expectancy. You seem to agree that aging is inconvenient, so I assume you’d take this pill. Would you?
But what if that pill also extended your lifespan indefinitely, as well as curing aging? Not true immortality, of course, since your body would still be susceptible to disease and accident, but it would mean that every year you’re as likely to die as you were last year, ie your chance of dying doesn’t increase with age. Now, there are a lot of people who say death is a good thing. In the interest of pleasing these people, while also providing the elimination of aging, scientists develop a second substance, which causes multiple organ failure at about your expected lifespan. By combining this substance with the immortality pill, they create a cure for aging that does not have immortality as a side-effect. Which of these pills would you prefer, or would you reject both?
Now, if you’re not a consequentialist, the second pill no doubt seems like it has the stigma of suicide, even though its effects are identical to a previous example which perhaps seemed both positive and non-suicidal. This stigma would vanish, even if the pill were identical, if the pills had been developed in reverse order, with the immortality pill being a refinement of the anti-aging pill to remove a substance that causes eventual multiple organ failure. Or perhaps simply the existence of both options would make them both repugnant to you, one because it stinks of suicide, and the other one because you don’t want immortality?
On a different note, there are in fact some legitimate advantages of death by limited lifespan, and some that might be considered both advantageous and disadvantageous. A limited lifespan allows for permanent retirement. Solving death would be a huge problem for the politicians who have to kick people off retirement, with a risk that they’d rather go bankrupt than anger our elderly. A huge chunk of our taxes are estate taxes “aka death tax”. Death is a great equalizer: it will eliminate any specific tyrant and any specific individual who is accumulating “too much” wealth. Making death technically not inevitable would decrease our courage to do dangerous or violent things, such as soldiering, volunteering to test drugs, violent or non-violent resistance to a corrupt regime. The combination of immortal tyrant with decreased opposition from internal resistance or external liberators, is particularly worrisome. Unlimited lifespan will increase procrastination. Death eliminates old people set in their ways from positions of power and authority, making way for new ideas. Death makes all your problems go away or become someone else’s problems. With limited lifespans, you won’t outlive your friends by more than ~100 years. Even with all that, there’s an equally impressive list for the benefits of a longer lifespan, plus I can point to about 7 billion people who think living is better than dying.
I think I would, yes.
I don’t think so, no.
More than a stigma, suicide is very consequential. It’s a deep trauma for many people surrounding the victim. I think it is a net zero for the victim, however.
Overall, I still see the main argument as this: If you lived forever, you’d be able to accumulated ulimited fuzzies and utilons. And that is objectively better than fewer fuzzie and utilons. Therefore, death is bad.
I’m not “for” death. But life is an accident, an unintended side-effect of physical laws and processes. While I think you point out some good practical examples of advantages and disadvantages for the option of immortality, I sense my objections are of a bit different sort.
We, as living things, have evolved to fight to live, and live to fight. You want to live because nature has designed you to want to live. That is it. We glean some pleasure and meaning in the process of fighting/living/surviving, and that is cool. I sense the novelty of this will run out eventually.
Death isn’t a problem. If future AI finds a way (and have some reason) to keep humans alive and torture them for eternity, then that is a big problem.
People all over the globe starving and enduring suffering via war, disease, etc. is a problem.
Aging leading to Alzheimer’s, et al, is a problem.
Death is empty of any value. It is neither good or bad. It isn’t a problem unless ego makes it one.
It may be zero for you. If you think it should be zero for others too, I’d like to see some reasoning. That I can’t experience death is obvious, but not convincing. If I only valued things I directly experience here and now, I don’t think I could have any plans whatsoever. The fact that my death is a trauma for others also motivates me not to die. Doesn’t it motivate you?
Absolutely. But that is a completely separate issue.
However, I sense that is related to some of what is happening when people speak about death in regard to opportunity costs. When mourning the loss of a younger person, it is common to hear people say “S/he had so much potential that now is lost.” I’ve said that before.
But what are we really saying? What did somebody who is no longer conscious or aware in anyway really “lose”?
In reality, and as you point out, we the still living are the one who are losing something. We lose a friend or a family member. We may lose a bit of motivation when confronted with that reminder of our eventual mortality. Or maybe we lose some peace of mind (or add some anxiety) for the same reason.
It isn’t my argument that death isn’t bad for those who keep living. I would argue their loss would be mitigated if (a) the associated negative aspects of death (pain, trauma, aging, disease, etc.) were eliminated and (b) they meditated on the actual, practical implications of death for the deceased.
I’m not sure what would convince you or count as proper reasoning.
It’s basically an opportunity cost argument that is being made against death. That’s fine with me. I guess there isn’t much I can do to rebut that.
Opportunity costs only seem to make sense in terms of their effect on our current conscious experience.
If I chose not to travel after college when I was single and unattached, I might regret that now that I’m settled down and don’t possess that opportunity (or the memories and life experience I would have gained) given my current commitments and obligations.
If I chose not to invest in Google when I had the cash to do so, I rue that decision, since buying that stock would have contributed to all sorts of potential good things in my present and future, and make me feel less anxious right now.
But death negates all such considerations. If I were to snap my finger and you and I would be dead, opportunity costs would be practically absurd to speak of in our cases.
I concede that the math works for immortality—A years x B utilons/fuzzies per year = Total Awesomeness. As long as B is positive, then maximizing A always increases awesomeness, and making A infinite leads to infinite awesomeness.
It is interesting you phrase it that way. I’ll ask in the spirit of Eckhart Tolle: Is there some way you know of to experience value in things outside of here and now?
Are you sure the problem isn’t unusual use of language?
I meditate regularly, I know what you mean and the answer to the meaning of your question is no. I also think this kind of a question with this particular intended meaning is abuse of language, and insisting on using common language to describe the insights you’ve gained through meditation mostly yields nonsense. When people say future they mean future, not the present moment and if you insist otherwise you lose information.
I value things not here and now all the time. They’re just not yet here and now and don’t necessarily have to ever be.
Please say more about this.
I don’t understand. When is it that you find value in them? In what way can you experience anything, in the future or the past, outside of the present moment? Can you “value” something without “experiencing” it? If so, how do you define the distinction?
I’ll do so tomorrow with a fresh brain. I find my chances of communicating anything useful poor though. Specialized vocabulary would be nice. I suppose mindful religions have that, too bad it’s buried in religious scripture.
Absolutely. But that is a completely separate issue.
However, I sense that is related to some of what is happening when people speak about death in regard to opportunity costs. When mourning the loss of a younger person, it is common to hear people say “S/he had so much potential that now is lost.” I’ve said that before.
But what are we really saying? What did somebody who is no longer conscious or aware in anyway really “lose”?
In reality, and as you point out, we the still living are the one who are losing something. We lose a friend or a family member. We may lose a bit of motivation when confronted with that reminder of our eventual mortality. Or maybe we lose some peace of mind (or add some anxiety) for the same reason.
It isn’t my argument that death isn’t bad for those who keep living. I would argue their loss would be mitigated if (a) the associated negative aspects of death (pain, trauma, aging, disease, etc.) were eliminated and (b) they meditated on the actual, practical implications of death for the deceased.