Biologically, living beings are programmed to fight to stay alive and healthy, and to avoid death so the species survives and can propagate. So while there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" with natural death, your body will tell you it doesn't want to die.
"Bad" and "Good" are just words. In my opinion life and death are both equally meaningless events. Someday you will be forgotten and the earth will perish and everything everyone has ever done or will do will be rendered moot. None of this matters on a real scale outside of our individual perceptions and feelings. This is why most people feel like something has to happen after death, its a hard fact to accept and realize this is a more likely scenario.
"Bad" and "Good" are just words. In my opinion life and death are both equally meaningless events. Someday you will be forgotten and the earth will perish and everything everyone has ever done or will do will be rendered moot. None of this matters on a real scale outside of our individual perceptions and feelings. This is why most people feel like something has to happen after death, its a hard fact to accept and realize this is a more likely scenario.
IDK, that sounds kinda bad to me, regardless of its truth.
It's true that children will starve to death everyday. Does the inevitability of that statement negate any moral implications of it?
If you could remove yourself from your personal feelings and human empathy for instance, and view the world from the outside looking in. Would it be any different than any other creature starving to death be it a fly or a rat? Aside from our personal feelings and attachments I don't see how it's neither moral or immoral (which I would also argue are merely words as well).
If you could remove yourself from your personal feelings and human empathy for instance, and view the world from the outside looking in. Would it be any different than any other creature starving to death be it a fly or a rat?
Yes, because humans and rats are objectively different. You might be able to make an argument that their value--in this madeup mindset you've arbitrarily created--is the same. But, you could not argue that they ARE the same, since they're not.
Additionally, I see no reason to discard my human empathy, even if I could.
Aside from our personal feelings and attachments I don't see how it's neither moral or immoral (which I would also argue are merely words as well).
Why would you need to go "aside" from your feelings? Under what persecutive are you making your value judgement from? A rock's? Rocks don't strike me as very good at making value judgements.
Anyway, the point being that if anything is to be considered "bad," children starving would be close to the top of that list. Just because it's inevitable does not negate its moral implications.
Clearly I have offended you and for that I apologize. I was merely saying that yes while rats and humans are different they are both just creatures on the planet. If you could for instance be a a highly advanced ET for example, would they seem all that different? Both are lifeforms scurrying around trying to survive the best they can. A crystal and a diamond are objectively different, but when it comes down to it they are very close to the same thing. Don't misunderstand me, starving children is an awful thing (certainly not something I am advocating btw) and I believe as a race we can solve the issue of famine if we had the will to do so.
I was merely saying that yes while rats and humans are different they are both just creatures on the planet. If you could for instance be a a highly advanced ET for example, would they seem all that different?
Yes. Just as an ant is different from a dog or a gorilla.
Both are lifeforms scurrying around trying to survive the best they can. A crystal and a diamond are objectively different, but when it comes down to it they are very close to the same thing.
But have different functionality; serve different roles; are used for different purposes....
(unless you're talking about a diamond crystal, since a diamond is a form of crystal...)
Don't misunderstand me, starving children is an awful thing (certainly not something I am advocating btw) and I believe as a race we can solve the issue of famine if we had the will to do so.
So, how is death some how immune to your version of morality?
This very day, we could not solve world hunger. It would take ingenuity and a mindset we don't currently have. Some might even say you would need to change the base nature of humans to do it; get them to care about something it is not natural for them to care about. It is a very natural thing to have humans starve to death. It has always happend and some would argue it WILL always happen.
Yet, you say we should work towards this goal of eliminating it, on moral grounds.
So, why is death immune to your version of morality, but not famine?
Why would anyone think death is bad? It's a natural event. Starvation, murder, genocide, etc etc....these are all parts of the human situation.
It's our ability to cope with these events that make them seem more important. If my child died, I'd be crushed. Or my wife or my cat or my bonsai tree. Of course I would. But at the end of the day, would I question the morality of it? The ethics, the rules, the law or how and why? No. Because I'm trying to apply a label, or a logical way of thinking, to a force that is inescapable. Death can't be put into a nice and tidy little cabinet in your brain to be analyzed and figured out. It's just death. We're all gonna die. Some young, some old. Some will die of a heart attack, others by a knife in a drunken bar brawl.
All you can do is understand that your time will come, likely at a time and place you haven't prepared for.
Circle of life dude. The Lion King.
And I personally can't wait. Cause I struck a deal with the devil to be reincarnated as a lion.
Why would anyone think death is bad? It's a natural event. Starvation, murder, genocide, etc etc....these are all parts of the human situation.
I notice you did not mention natural disease. Is cancer--for example--"bad?" Are you impartial towards curing cancer? We know many forms to be natural. Should we only be trying to stop the man-made verity of cancer? Are the kinds of cancer caused by agent orange "bad," but the kinds made by sunlight not? Should we be trying to stop one, but not the other?
It's our ability to cope with these events that make them seem more important. If my child died, I'd be crushed. Or my wife or my cat or my bonsai tree. Of course I would. But at the end of the day, would I question the morality of it? The ethics, the rules, the law or how and why? No. Because I'm trying to apply a label, or a logical way of thinking, to a force that is inescapable. Death can't be put into a nice and tidy little cabinet in your brain to be analyzed and figured out. It's just death. We're all gonna die. Some young, some old. Some will die of a heart attack, others by a knife in a drunken bar brawl.
500 years ago smallpox was 'inescapable.' Should* we have just thrown our hands up and said "forget it, it's natural?" Should* we have just accepted our fate? Or should* we have tired to cure it? This argument that death is somehow "unbeatable" and therefore is immune to moral judgment is erroneous.
If you are unable to view death without the "inevitability" coping mechanism, then it is YOU that aren't looking at the problem logically.
The question is not "CAN we do anything about death?" But it is "SHOULD we try to do anything about death?" It almost(but not quite) seems to me you are debating the wrong thing because you apparently cannot accept the idea we might be able to do something about death. However, it does seem to me that you have somehow mixed those two questions together, however, when they are--in fact--VERY different.
*If you say we should've stopped thing X, then you have gone from an 'is' to an 'ought,' and are making a value judgment about the action and the thing.
__________________ "Is there anyone in the audience that is unsure if malaria is a good thing or a bad thing? Ok, so we all can agree that malaria is a bad thing, that's very good of you. I would like to put it to you that the main reason we think malaria is a bad thing is because of a characteristic it shares with aging; it kills people." -Aubrey de Grey
You seem upset. Im not arguing causes, im arguing death. You WILL die. Of any of the causes listed above. This is what im hearing you say about this topic.
"Well, i dont hear you saying being hit by a BUS is bad. Isnt being hit by a bus bad? Can we stop bus related fatalities? Oh, i get it. You LIKE people being hit by buses."
No. I am saying death is a certainty. Thats it. You can argue cause of death and the morality of those causes all you want, but the fact of the matter is you are going to die. So no, dying is not bad. Thats the title of the thread. "Is death bad."
No, it is not.
So I think you need to figure out what exactly it is you'd like to discuss on this thread. The morality of certain causes of death, the nature of death, or death itself. Because as far as I can see, you're kind of all over the place. Insinuating that anyone on this thread wouldn't cure cancer or assist a starving child is a little harsh. No, I'm not saying these are things you've advocated, except maybe the cancer thing. You were kind of borderline there.
Death isn't good or bad. It's just death bro. We all get to meet up with it sooner or later.
No. I am saying death is a certainty. Thats it. You can argue cause of death and the morality of those causes all you want, but the fact of the matter is you are going to die. So no, dying is not bad. Thats the title of the thread. "Is death bad."
"Inevitability -> not bad" is erroneous by itself. One does not follow from the other. Your argument(as it currently stands) has nothing to do with the question asked.
Additionally, the idea that it's "inevitable" stifles thought and development. It means you've given up before you even begin. And, the prevalence of this factious way of thinking stops people from funding projects trying to prevent things like aging. Giving up on something as fundamentally "impossible" before you even try causes nothing but the stagnation of human advancement.
It IS inevitable. That's the point. It's death. It's inevitable that the earth will be destroyed when the sun goes nova. It's inevitable that life will at some point cease. Unless you can find me a link or a story that says "Man discovers immortality elixir.", then I seem to be correct here.
"Inevitable", the word itself:
in·ev·i·ta·ble
/inˈevitəbəl/
Adjective
Certain to happen; unavoidable: "war was inevitable".
Noun
A situation that is unavoidable.
Synonyms
unavoidable - inescapable - ineluctable - necessary
How is that good or bad? It just IS. Like I said above, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue here. Whether or not death is bad, or the moral and ethical implications on society concerning the CAUSES of death.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Some say that time is cyclical and that history inevitably repeats. My will is my own. I won't bow to fate."
Again, even if I accepted this as fundamentally true* it's irrelevant.
It being inevitable in-it-of-itself does not mean it's "not bad." You have to make an argument about why something inevitable is immune to mortality; you have not.
If you come back with another "but inevitable just DOES imply 'not bad'" I'll not respond because you're not advancing the argument. You're just restating the same non-sequitur over and over.
*(which I don't because I have no way of knowing what advances humans will make in the future. Aubrey de Grey is trying to stop aging, for example. I don't know enough about his work to off-handily dismiss it, as you seem to be. I know many many things deemed "impossible" have been proven to not be in the whole of human history. )
__________________ "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
-Arthur C. Clarke
You're not paying attention. Allow me to use some examples that might clarify.
Is a tsunami bad?
A volcanic eruption?
An earthquake?
A supernova?
Are these things bad? I don't believe they are. They are natural acts. A tsunami can kill people. So can an earthquake, volcano, etc. does that make them bad? Once again, no, it doesn't.
Death. The ending of all biological function. All things die in time.
As for your response and it's necessity, that's your call. I personally think this is a topic which is both unnecessary AND open and shut. I've made my argument, I feel. And the argument is simply this: an act of nature cannot be inherently "bad" as "bad" is entirely subjective. What you consider "bad" might be different than what someone else considers "bad". Which leads me to believe that not only are you biased in this area, but also that you are unwilling to hear the thoughts of others concerning it, as stated in your last post.
So, just to reiterate before I go: dying, itself, is a natural thing. In my OPINION (which apparently is incorrect) it cannot be judged as good or bad. Those are subjective labels that you are trying to apply to an event that really doesn't deserve either of them. It should not be GOOD that someone dies, just like it shouldn't be BAD that someone dies. This is what you don't seem to be hearing from my argument, which is fine.
It is neither good nor bad. It is the logical conclusion to life.
PS: Anti-aging is NOT the defeat of death, sorry.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Some say that time is cyclical and that history inevitably repeats. My will is my own. I won't bow to fate."
Everything "just is". All bad things just happen, the universe continues not caring and nothing will change unless we do something about it.
As thermodynamic inevitability, there is nothing we can do to fight death; that is trivially obvious. But that has no practical bearing on why we actually die, or on how terribly rapid and painful the process is. Our best and brightest have a tiny fraction of their lives to operate at peak efficiency before their intellects begin to wither, and our eldest; those with the most precious life experience can scarcely hold their minds together long enough to pass any of this along. Sure, in the long run, there may be a point where enough is enough. But a handful of decades, the first few of which are spent learning how to function at a basic level, and the last half of which amount to withering away?
Why not a thousand years of youthful vigor? Yeah, it's wishful thinking at this point, but for the first time in human history we have the tools and understanding to actually begin to address the problem. Unfortunately, since this has never been the case before, we have been spoon-fed all of this bull**** about how death is "natural" and we've even somehow managed to romanticize it, probably because it's very hard to actually confront mortality unaided.
If we don't wipe ourselves out, humanity will come around eventually. But in the mean-time, people are dying. I'm not really sure what could be more urgent.
Everything "just is". All bad things just happen, the universe continues not caring and nothing will change unless we do something about it.
As thermodynamic inevitability, there is nothing we can do to fight death; that is trivially obvious. But that has no practical bearing on why we actually die, or on how terribly rapid and painful the process is. Our best and brightest have a tiny fraction of their lives to operate at peak efficiency before their intellects begin to wither, and our eldest; those with the most precious life experience can scarcely hold their minds together long enough to pass any of this along. Sure, in the long run, there may be a point where enough is enough. But a handful of decades, the first few of which are spent learning how to function at a basic level, and the last half of which amount to withering away?
Why not a thousand years of youthful vigor? Yeah, it's wishful thinking at this point, but for the first time in human history we have the tools and understanding to actually begin to address the problem. Unfortunately, since this has never been the case before, we have been spoon-fed all of this bull**** about how death is "natural" and we've even somehow managed to romanticize it, probably because it's very hard to actually confront mortality unaided.
If we don't wipe ourselves out, humanity will come around eventually. But in the mean-time, people are dying. I'm not really sure what could be more urgent.
I'm not arguing about a thousand years of youthful vigor. I'm not arguing about the pain and suffering of death. I understand both the possibility of expanded lifespans and painful slow deaths. Those things are all fine and well. Will humanity progress to a point where everyone is happy and healthy and we all expect to live to 600? Maybe. And that would be just awesome.
But once again, we aren't discussing those things. We're discussing whether or not death is bad. And my question to anyone posting in here is, how can you label death as a bad thing? If you're lying in a bed, body riddled with cancer, in extreme pain and discomfort....would you not think of death as a welcome thing? On the other hand, if you're in the prime of your life, healthy, ready to set the world on fire with your genius, but suddenly, as I've pointed out before, get hit by a speeding bus....is that not a bad thing?
The point is, it's subjective. Therefore, you can't call death bad or good, it's just a part of life. What am I saying that people aren't understanding here?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Some say that time is cyclical and that history inevitably repeats. My will is my own. I won't bow to fate."
If tomorrow scientists said that they had figured out how to stop the heat death of the universe, then you just wouldn't believe them? You are completely and utterly convinced that the universe will and must end, and believe no amount of scientific advancement will ever or CAN ever change that?
You feel no one should give any funding to projects trying to make humans immoral? Since it's "impossible" to do anything about it?
Will humanity progress to a point where everyone is happy and healthy and we all expect to live to 600? Maybe. And that would be just awesome.
You're contradicting yourself here. How can it be "just awesome" if death isn't bad? On what bases are you evaluating living to 600 as "good?"
Is living healthily until the age of 10 and then painlessly dying equivalent to living healthily until the age of 600 and then painlessly dying? If death is "all fine and well" as you claim, then those things should be equal. Are they?
Ok, so once again you've failed to understand....pretty much everything I said. So lets deal with this categorically.
1. If scientists solved the heat death issue, that would be just chilly with me. However, yes, I still think that the universe would end at some point. Because it is my belief that everything has a logical termination point. "Well what about entropy and this and that and RAWR RAWR RAWR?!?!?" Yes, I still think it will end. Sorry. Alpha and Omega, life and death, for every action a reaction. Still with me?
2. I'm not contradicting myself anywhere. I never said death was good. If you're gonna prop up a strawman argument, at least do it correctly please. I said death cannot be categorized as good OR bad. It depends on the person and the situation. Refer to my earlier posts if you need to, which evidently you do. Because I said if a man has painful cancer, he may wish for death and see it as a good thing. But if a young man, healthy and strong, were to die, it would be a bad thing.
Once again. YOU, sir, are not arguing death. You are arguing CAUSE of death, and it's implications. I'll say it one more time: death is neither good or bad OBJECTIVELY. It is SUBJECTIVE, meaning you may find it to be awful, but others may find it to be just fine.
Please read what I'm saying. If you're in here to argue for the sake of argument, which seems likely with each post you make, then I'll find another topic. It's been fun discussing with you, even though it is GLARINGLY apparent that you have some issue you need to get off your chest, or some occurrence which has colored your view so thoroughly that you can't seem to quite grasp my thought process here. All I'm saying is, death is something different to everyone. Take you and me. I think it's just a natural end, a necessary step to take in the human condition. With you, it almost comes across as "Death is bad, no one should die EVAH, because it's just BAD!!!" Which to pretty much everyone willing to look at the issue itself, would not be a good thing.
So. I'll take my immoral, death cult loving self to another thread, and you can keep crusading against the grim reaper and all the evils he takes out on man. Thank you, and good day.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Some say that time is cyclical and that history inevitably repeats. My will is my own. I won't bow to fate."
1. If scientists solved the heat death issue, that would be just chilly with me. However, yes, I still think that the universe would end at some point. Because it is my belief that everything has a logical termination point. "Well what about entropy and this and that and RAWR RAWR RAWR?!?!?" Yes, I still think it will end. Sorry. Alpha and Omega, life and death, for every action a reaction. Still with me?
No. Not on this issue because there is no point in having a dissection with someone who refuses to believe the status quo is changeable.
I said death cannot be categorized as good OR bad. It depends on the person and the situation. Refer to my earlier posts if you need to, which evidently you do. Because I said if a man has painful cancer, he may wish for death and see it as a good thing. But if a young man, healthy and strong, were to die, it would be a bad thing.
Is your argument--then--that anything better than unimaginable pain "not bad?"
I will also note you did not bother to answer the either of the questions I asked in the other post. I will just state I don't ask rhetorical questions. If I ask a question, then I'd like an answer.
Once again. YOU, sir, are not arguing death. You are arguing CAUSE of death, and it's implications. I'll say it one more time: death is neither good or bad OBJECTIVELY. It is SUBJECTIVE, meaning you may find it to be awful, but others may find it to be just fine.
I'm not arguing anything of the sort.
I have not stated whether or not I think death is good or bad, and I have not been arguing for its goodness or badness. I have simply been stating that you're assertion that it's "no bad" based on your belief it's "unavoidable" is a non sequitur.
You haven't asked for my opinion on the matter so I've not felt the need to give it.
Please read what I'm saying. If you're in here to argue for the sake of argument, which seems likely with each post you make, then I'll find another topic. It's been fun discussing with you, even though it is GLARINGLY apparent that you have some issue you need to get off your chest, or some occurrence which has colored your view so thoroughly that you can't seem to quite grasp my thought process here. All I'm saying is, death is something different to everyone. Take you and me. I think it's just a natural end, a necessary step to take in the human condition. With you, it almost comes across as "Death is bad, no one should die EVAH, because it's just BAD!!!" Which to pretty much everyone willing to look at the issue itself, would not be a good thing.
But, if you must know, I don't know if death is good or bad. I was hoping to have a real discussion about it on this thread, but it seems people are too caught up in non sequitur arguments about eventuality for that to happen.
Your views on this issue are loud and clear for anyone reading. Don't worry about clarifying, it's not necessary. I wish you well in your future endeavors concerning this issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Some say that time is cyclical and that history inevitably repeats. My will is my own. I won't bow to fate."
I think BS's question on the first page is very telling. As he said if you think something is "bad," then you would rather it not occur than occur. If you'd rather live tomorrow than die tomorrow, then you think death is bad.
I will go out on a limb and assume that everyone here would NOT like dying tomorrow; the very fact we are still alive and participating in this debate is a telling fact about whether--on a personal level--we find death bad or not.
Thus, trivially, we all think death is bad from an individual perspective, mainly our own.
However, on a species wide level I think the question becomes more interesting. Is it better for mankind as a whole that aging and death occurs? At first glance, I thought the answer to the question was also trivial (especially after watching this video). Until someone asked me how the world might be different if everyone that lived during the Civil War was still alive, and still voting.
Without aging, people live longer, and change becomes harder. We are experiencing the issues that causes right now as the Baby Boomers are living (and working) unprecedentedly long, with things like Alzheimer's on the way out. Businesses would--obviously--rather keep on the experienced worker than go through all of the bother of training a new young worker. So, unemployment is also high as new workers have to wait longer for people to retire. And those that are retiring find themselves a drain on resources as they live longer than excepted. Social changes also might occur slower due to this; IDK, but it seems very likely.
So, experience is at a premium, but new ideas are at an all time low. Is this good for mankind or not? Is this a reasonable trade off? I don't know.
Your views on this issue are loud and clear for anyone reading. Don't worry about clarifying, it's not necessary. I wish you well in your future endeavors concerning this issue.
Good. I was worried--due to your apparent misinterpretations--I was being unclear. I am happy to learn you understood me perfectly.
1.) death is good. Dying may not be, but death is.
2.) I can't think of anything more hellish than living forever.
I'd be fine with living forever as long as permanent stasis was invented so that I could cheat the system and go into permanent sleep forever when I got tired of everyone I know dying.
I personally am afraid of death. I have been every since I was in 2nd grade. The idea that my existence will end and that no one even knows if there even is anything else is just terrifying for me. However, I have come to terms with the fact that I can't do anything to stop death from claiming me eventually. Even if scientists develop a way to stop aging, I will eventually get into an accident, be murdered, or something like that. What I am still afraid of though is that everything that I do will be forgotten. That is why death is viewed as bad. The idea that your legacy will be forgotten and that everything you did will pass into dust is simply abhorrent to most people. It is as if you never existed. That you lived and died, but it never mattered. Billions of people have lived on this world, but how many of them are remembered by anyone today? We can't even prove that they existed. We don't know their jobs, their personalities, or even their names. That what is bad about death. That in a couple hundred years, none of us will have ever existed.
I disagree that death is absolutely essential from an evolutionary standpoint. Death is perhaps the most convenient means to facilitate evolution and other natural processes, but that is only based on how our biological systems work.
The hydra is biologically immortal. It does not age. Biologically, it can live forever as its former cells can replenish its new cells indefinitely. I think this serves as a counter example that death is absolutely essential from an evolutionary standpoint.
We are programmed to die. We might die sooner than that from trauma or other effects, but our cell lines are bound by the Hayflick limit. That is not always the case however: in hydra, in cancer, and in stem cells. Those three are biologically immortal. The cancer of Henrietta lacks from the 50s is still alive and kicking today, being used in our research.
Death is convenient for the earth and life as a systemic whole. It means that our bodies don't have to figure out a way to deal with metabolic byproducts that we don't heal from. It leaves room for more genetic diversity. If a creature is maimed, it is biologically "cheaper" to let it die than for nature to figure out a means of healing or regenerating the whole thing.
In many ways, the fight against death is the fight against entropy. Our lives require an inherent order to our bodies. Death means that when that order is disrupted, the organism dies rather than have means to restore that order.
Our tongues are capable of regeneration. Our livers too. All that makes good sense. But what about our brains and memories? That would be impossible to restore. There what entropy has destroyed, it becomes impossible to recover.
I have the greatest novel ever written in my hand. I tear it up so thoroughly that every piece of confetti has on it a single letter. Now, how do you restore that confetti into a novel? You cannot. To do so would require basically rewriting that entire novel from scratch. So too is it with the more complex aspects of our biological being--things like our memories. If your life depends on long term potentiated neurons, the damage to that is too complex to feasibly restore.
But suppose that you are a hydra. Your body is a nothing more than a tube with various biochemical gradients. Water flows in, you absorb some nutrients...water flows out. That's your being. Entropy has a much harder time harming you. Your biological system is so simple, restoration of your biology through metabolic means is feasible. Apparently evolution and nature agree seeing as how hydra evolved biological immortality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's completely normal to not want to die. (duh)
It's true that children will starve to death everyday. Does the inevitability of that statement negate any moral implications of it?
Additionally, I see no reason to discard my human empathy, even if I could.
Why would you need to go "aside" from your feelings? Under what persecutive are you making your value judgement from? A rock's? Rocks don't strike me as very good at making value judgements.
Anyway, the point being that if anything is to be considered "bad," children starving would be close to the top of that list. Just because it's inevitable does not negate its moral implications.
Yes. Just as an ant is different from a dog or a gorilla.
But have different functionality; serve different roles; are used for different purposes....
(unless you're talking about a diamond crystal, since a diamond is a form of crystal...)
So, how is death some how immune to your version of morality?
This very day, we could not solve world hunger. It would take ingenuity and a mindset we don't currently have. Some might even say you would need to change the base nature of humans to do it; get them to care about something it is not natural for them to care about. It is a very natural thing to have humans starve to death. It has always happend and some would argue it WILL always happen.
Yet, you say we should work towards this goal of eliminating it, on moral grounds.
So, why is death immune to your version of morality, but not famine?
It's our ability to cope with these events that make them seem more important. If my child died, I'd be crushed. Or my wife or my cat or my bonsai tree. Of course I would. But at the end of the day, would I question the morality of it? The ethics, the rules, the law or how and why? No. Because I'm trying to apply a label, or a logical way of thinking, to a force that is inescapable. Death can't be put into a nice and tidy little cabinet in your brain to be analyzed and figured out. It's just death. We're all gonna die. Some young, some old. Some will die of a heart attack, others by a knife in a drunken bar brawl.
All you can do is understand that your time will come, likely at a time and place you haven't prepared for.
Circle of life dude. The Lion King.
And I personally can't wait. Cause I struck a deal with the devil to be reincarnated as a lion.
Volrath the FallenB Empress GalinaU Oona, Queen of the FaeBUAgrus Kos, Wojek VeteranRW
500 years ago smallpox was 'inescapable.' Should* we have just thrown our hands up and said "forget it, it's natural?" Should* we have just accepted our fate? Or should* we have tired to cure it? This argument that death is somehow "unbeatable" and therefore is immune to moral judgment is erroneous.
If you are unable to view death without the "inevitability" coping mechanism, then it is YOU that aren't looking at the problem logically.
The question is not "CAN we do anything about death?" But it is "SHOULD we try to do anything about death?" It almost(but not quite) seems to me you are debating the wrong thing because you apparently cannot accept the idea we might be able to do something about death. However, it does seem to me that you have somehow mixed those two questions together, however, when they are--in fact--VERY different.
*If you say we should've stopped thing X, then you have gone from an 'is' to an 'ought,' and are making a value judgment about the action and the thing.
__________________
"Is there anyone in the audience that is unsure if malaria is a good thing or a bad thing? Ok, so we all can agree that malaria is a bad thing, that's very good of you. I would like to put it to you that the main reason we think malaria is a bad thing is because of a characteristic it shares with aging; it kills people." -Aubrey de Grey
"Well, i dont hear you saying being hit by a BUS is bad. Isnt being hit by a bus bad? Can we stop bus related fatalities? Oh, i get it. You LIKE people being hit by buses."
No. I am saying death is a certainty. Thats it. You can argue cause of death and the morality of those causes all you want, but the fact of the matter is you are going to die. So no, dying is not bad. Thats the title of the thread. "Is death bad."
No, it is not.
So I think you need to figure out what exactly it is you'd like to discuss on this thread. The morality of certain causes of death, the nature of death, or death itself. Because as far as I can see, you're kind of all over the place. Insinuating that anyone on this thread wouldn't cure cancer or assist a starving child is a little harsh. No, I'm not saying these are things you've advocated, except maybe the cancer thing. You were kind of borderline there.
Death isn't good or bad. It's just death bro. We all get to meet up with it sooner or later.
Volrath the FallenB Empress GalinaU Oona, Queen of the FaeBUAgrus Kos, Wojek VeteranRW
This is not relevant to the question.
I am pointing out that this is a non-sequitur.
"Inevitability -> not bad" is erroneous by itself. One does not follow from the other. Your argument(as it currently stands) has nothing to do with the question asked.
Additionally, the idea that it's "inevitable" stifles thought and development. It means you've given up before you even begin. And, the prevalence of this factious way of thinking stops people from funding projects trying to prevent things like aging. Giving up on something as fundamentally "impossible" before you even try causes nothing but the stagnation of human advancement.
"Inevitable", the word itself:
in·ev·i·ta·ble
/inˈevitəbəl/
Adjective
Certain to happen; unavoidable: "war was inevitable".
Noun
A situation that is unavoidable.
Synonyms
unavoidable - inescapable - ineluctable - necessary
How is that good or bad? It just IS. Like I said above, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue here. Whether or not death is bad, or the moral and ethical implications on society concerning the CAUSES of death.
Volrath the FallenB Empress GalinaU Oona, Queen of the FaeBUAgrus Kos, Wojek VeteranRW
Again, even if I accepted this as fundamentally true* it's irrelevant.
It being inevitable in-it-of-itself does not mean it's "not bad." You have to make an argument about why something inevitable is immune to mortality; you have not.
If you come back with another "but inevitable just DOES imply 'not bad'" I'll not respond because you're not advancing the argument. You're just restating the same non-sequitur over and over.
*(which I don't because I have no way of knowing what advances humans will make in the future. Aubrey de Grey is trying to stop aging, for example. I don't know enough about his work to off-handily dismiss it, as you seem to be. I know many many things deemed "impossible" have been proven to not be in the whole of human history. )
__________________
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
-Arthur C. Clarke
Is a tsunami bad?
A volcanic eruption?
An earthquake?
A supernova?
Are these things bad? I don't believe they are. They are natural acts. A tsunami can kill people. So can an earthquake, volcano, etc. does that make them bad? Once again, no, it doesn't.
Death. The ending of all biological function. All things die in time.
As for your response and it's necessity, that's your call. I personally think this is a topic which is both unnecessary AND open and shut. I've made my argument, I feel. And the argument is simply this: an act of nature cannot be inherently "bad" as "bad" is entirely subjective. What you consider "bad" might be different than what someone else considers "bad". Which leads me to believe that not only are you biased in this area, but also that you are unwilling to hear the thoughts of others concerning it, as stated in your last post.
So, just to reiterate before I go: dying, itself, is a natural thing. In my OPINION (which apparently is incorrect) it cannot be judged as good or bad. Those are subjective labels that you are trying to apply to an event that really doesn't deserve either of them. It should not be GOOD that someone dies, just like it shouldn't be BAD that someone dies. This is what you don't seem to be hearing from my argument, which is fine.
It is neither good nor bad. It is the logical conclusion to life.
PS: Anti-aging is NOT the defeat of death, sorry.
Volrath the FallenB Empress GalinaU Oona, Queen of the FaeBUAgrus Kos, Wojek VeteranRW
Everything "just is". All bad things just happen, the universe continues not caring and nothing will change unless we do something about it.
As thermodynamic inevitability, there is nothing we can do to fight death; that is trivially obvious. But that has no practical bearing on why we actually die, or on how terribly rapid and painful the process is. Our best and brightest have a tiny fraction of their lives to operate at peak efficiency before their intellects begin to wither, and our eldest; those with the most precious life experience can scarcely hold their minds together long enough to pass any of this along. Sure, in the long run, there may be a point where enough is enough. But a handful of decades, the first few of which are spent learning how to function at a basic level, and the last half of which amount to withering away?
Why not a thousand years of youthful vigor? Yeah, it's wishful thinking at this point, but for the first time in human history we have the tools and understanding to actually begin to address the problem. Unfortunately, since this has never been the case before, we have been spoon-fed all of this bull**** about how death is "natural" and we've even somehow managed to romanticize it, probably because it's very hard to actually confront mortality unaided.
If we don't wipe ourselves out, humanity will come around eventually. But in the mean-time, people are dying. I'm not really sure what could be more urgent.
I'm not arguing about a thousand years of youthful vigor. I'm not arguing about the pain and suffering of death. I understand both the possibility of expanded lifespans and painful slow deaths. Those things are all fine and well. Will humanity progress to a point where everyone is happy and healthy and we all expect to live to 600? Maybe. And that would be just awesome.
But once again, we aren't discussing those things. We're discussing whether or not death is bad. And my question to anyone posting in here is, how can you label death as a bad thing? If you're lying in a bed, body riddled with cancer, in extreme pain and discomfort....would you not think of death as a welcome thing? On the other hand, if you're in the prime of your life, healthy, ready to set the world on fire with your genius, but suddenly, as I've pointed out before, get hit by a speeding bus....is that not a bad thing?
The point is, it's subjective. Therefore, you can't call death bad or good, it's just a part of life. What am I saying that people aren't understanding here?
Volrath the FallenB Empress GalinaU Oona, Queen of the FaeBUAgrus Kos, Wojek VeteranRW
You feel no one should give any funding to projects trying to make humans immoral? Since it's "impossible" to do anything about it?
You're contradicting yourself here. How can it be "just awesome" if death isn't bad? On what bases are you evaluating living to 600 as "good?"
Is living healthily until the age of 10 and then painlessly dying equivalent to living healthily until the age of 600 and then painlessly dying? If death is "all fine and well" as you claim, then those things should be equal. Are they?
1. If scientists solved the heat death issue, that would be just chilly with me. However, yes, I still think that the universe would end at some point. Because it is my belief that everything has a logical termination point. "Well what about entropy and this and that and RAWR RAWR RAWR?!?!?" Yes, I still think it will end. Sorry. Alpha and Omega, life and death, for every action a reaction. Still with me?
2. I'm not contradicting myself anywhere. I never said death was good. If you're gonna prop up a strawman argument, at least do it correctly please. I said death cannot be categorized as good OR bad. It depends on the person and the situation. Refer to my earlier posts if you need to, which evidently you do. Because I said if a man has painful cancer, he may wish for death and see it as a good thing. But if a young man, healthy and strong, were to die, it would be a bad thing.
Once again. YOU, sir, are not arguing death. You are arguing CAUSE of death, and it's implications. I'll say it one more time: death is neither good or bad OBJECTIVELY. It is SUBJECTIVE, meaning you may find it to be awful, but others may find it to be just fine.
Please read what I'm saying. If you're in here to argue for the sake of argument, which seems likely with each post you make, then I'll find another topic. It's been fun discussing with you, even though it is GLARINGLY apparent that you have some issue you need to get off your chest, or some occurrence which has colored your view so thoroughly that you can't seem to quite grasp my thought process here. All I'm saying is, death is something different to everyone. Take you and me. I think it's just a natural end, a necessary step to take in the human condition. With you, it almost comes across as "Death is bad, no one should die EVAH, because it's just BAD!!!" Which to pretty much everyone willing to look at the issue itself, would not be a good thing.
So. I'll take my immoral, death cult loving self to another thread, and you can keep crusading against the grim reaper and all the evils he takes out on man. Thank you, and good day.
Volrath the FallenB Empress GalinaU Oona, Queen of the FaeBUAgrus Kos, Wojek VeteranRW
When did I say you said it was good?
I did not, go back and check.
Since YOU are now debating against something I did not say, it is YOU that are making a strawman argument.
Is your argument--then--that anything better than unimaginable pain "not bad?"
I will also note you did not bother to answer the either of the questions I asked in the other post. I will just state I don't ask rhetorical questions. If I ask a question, then I'd like an answer.
I'm not arguing anything of the sort.
I have not stated whether or not I think death is good or bad, and I have not been arguing for its goodness or badness. I have simply been stating that you're assertion that it's "no bad" based on your belief it's "unavoidable" is a non sequitur.
You haven't asked for my opinion on the matter so I've not felt the need to give it.
Ad hominem.
But, if you must know, I don't know if death is good or bad. I was hoping to have a real discussion about it on this thread, but it seems people are too caught up in non sequitur arguments about eventuality for that to happen.
Volrath the FallenB Empress GalinaU Oona, Queen of the FaeBUAgrus Kos, Wojek VeteranRW
We suffer not because it is intrinsically a bad experience, but because it represents the end of all good experiences, which kind suck.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
I will go out on a limb and assume that everyone here would NOT like dying tomorrow; the very fact we are still alive and participating in this debate is a telling fact about whether--on a personal level--we find death bad or not.
Thus, trivially, we all think death is bad from an individual perspective, mainly our own.
However, on a species wide level I think the question becomes more interesting. Is it better for mankind as a whole that aging and death occurs? At first glance, I thought the answer to the question was also trivial (especially after watching this video). Until someone asked me how the world might be different if everyone that lived during the Civil War was still alive, and still voting.
Without aging, people live longer, and change becomes harder. We are experiencing the issues that causes right now as the Baby Boomers are living (and working) unprecedentedly long, with things like Alzheimer's on the way out. Businesses would--obviously--rather keep on the experienced worker than go through all of the bother of training a new young worker. So, unemployment is also high as new workers have to wait longer for people to retire. And those that are retiring find themselves a drain on resources as they live longer than excepted. Social changes also might occur slower due to this; IDK, but it seems very likely.
So, experience is at a premium, but new ideas are at an all time low. Is this good for mankind or not? Is this a reasonable trade off? I don't know.
Good. I was worried--due to your apparent misinterpretations--I was being unclear. I am happy to learn you understood me perfectly.
2.) I can't think of anything more hellish than living forever.
I'd be fine with living forever as long as permanent stasis was invented so that I could cheat the system and go into permanent sleep forever when I got tired of everyone I know dying.
I personally am afraid of death. I have been every since I was in 2nd grade. The idea that my existence will end and that no one even knows if there even is anything else is just terrifying for me. However, I have come to terms with the fact that I can't do anything to stop death from claiming me eventually. Even if scientists develop a way to stop aging, I will eventually get into an accident, be murdered, or something like that. What I am still afraid of though is that everything that I do will be forgotten. That is why death is viewed as bad. The idea that your legacy will be forgotten and that everything you did will pass into dust is simply abhorrent to most people. It is as if you never existed. That you lived and died, but it never mattered. Billions of people have lived on this world, but how many of them are remembered by anyone today? We can't even prove that they existed. We don't know their jobs, their personalities, or even their names. That what is bad about death. That in a couple hundred years, none of us will have ever existed.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
The hydra is biologically immortal. It does not age. Biologically, it can live forever as its former cells can replenish its new cells indefinitely. I think this serves as a counter example that death is absolutely essential from an evolutionary standpoint.
We are programmed to die. We might die sooner than that from trauma or other effects, but our cell lines are bound by the Hayflick limit. That is not always the case however: in hydra, in cancer, and in stem cells. Those three are biologically immortal. The cancer of Henrietta lacks from the 50s is still alive and kicking today, being used in our research.
Death is convenient for the earth and life as a systemic whole. It means that our bodies don't have to figure out a way to deal with metabolic byproducts that we don't heal from. It leaves room for more genetic diversity. If a creature is maimed, it is biologically "cheaper" to let it die than for nature to figure out a means of healing or regenerating the whole thing.
In many ways, the fight against death is the fight against entropy. Our lives require an inherent order to our bodies. Death means that when that order is disrupted, the organism dies rather than have means to restore that order.
Our tongues are capable of regeneration. Our livers too. All that makes good sense. But what about our brains and memories? That would be impossible to restore. There what entropy has destroyed, it becomes impossible to recover.
I have the greatest novel ever written in my hand. I tear it up so thoroughly that every piece of confetti has on it a single letter. Now, how do you restore that confetti into a novel? You cannot. To do so would require basically rewriting that entire novel from scratch. So too is it with the more complex aspects of our biological being--things like our memories. If your life depends on long term potentiated neurons, the damage to that is too complex to feasibly restore.
But suppose that you are a hydra. Your body is a nothing more than a tube with various biochemical gradients. Water flows in, you absorb some nutrients...water flows out. That's your being. Entropy has a much harder time harming you. Your biological system is so simple, restoration of your biology through metabolic means is feasible. Apparently evolution and nature agree seeing as how hydra evolved biological immortality.