Death💀

[Josh]

Suffering is bad. Unfortunately, suffering and death are far more closely associated than we'd like. If you could entirely separate the two, such that death is only ever painless and voluntary, it's easier to understand why death is good. So, I entirely agree that terminal diseases, homicide and any other forms of death that involve physical or psychological suffering are bad...with 2 caveats.

1. Suffering is not always entirely bad because it often alleviates future suffering.

2. A lot of the psychological suffering surrounding death is due to a lack of

   1. agreement on when a given individual 'should' die and how much suffering that should involve or impart and

   2. acceptance of death having come sooner or involving more suffering than one 'would' accept.

I guess people usually argue that the death of individuals is what evolution depends on and that continuing to be able to solve problems depends on evolution. It did until humans evolved the capacity for medical care. Now we've decoded the genome among many other technological achievements that have allowed us to evolve beyond basic evolution by 'natural selection' for solving problems. This evolution of evolution has also given us the capacity to perceive and address problems like asteroids and solar events that stifle the ability of natural selection to go even further. These larger problems reach far beyond the scope of an individual not bieing ideally suited to its environment. So, why do individuals that are ideally suited to their environments still die before their environment becomes unsuitable for them?

The reason isn't obvious. When the reason for something isn't obvious, people often assume that it must not be a very good reason. They take a guess that it's just a problem that needs solving. Nothing wrong with that. In this case, the guess is simply wrong. But it's not that there are problems with living forever. It's that living forever IS the problem; Death is the solution.

We couldn't have evolved the capacity for such big ideas if it weren't for natural selection. Now that (we think) we have a good enough idea about how that works and why it was necessary, we assume it's no longer necessary. Our ideas will take it from here. Ideas evolve in just the same way but inside human minds. And ideas about how humans could evolve further are likely to supplant natural selection entirely. Why should humans themselves have to die? Why does a species that doesn't need 'natural selection' to make progress still require the death of individuals?

It's precicely because of the need for ideas to evolve beyond the capacity of the minds that conceive them. We think of species adapting to their environment but this is too simple a description. The environment and all other species in that environment adapt too. Likewise, although we understand that ideas evolve as they are communicated from one human mind to the next, the environment itself - in this case the human mind - also evolves as a suitable environment for new ideas. Earth - as great as it is - is not necessarily a suitable environment for any species that could evolve and any given mind - no matter how great - is not necessarily a suitable environment for all the ideas that could evolve.

Elon Musk warns that the problem with not dying is, "societies would ossify and the people in power would always remain in power." I think - more importantly - ideas, consciousness, our capacity to solve problems would ossify.

What about AGI and universal computing? I don't know. Theories about that have yet to be refuted or realized. If they are ever realized, it doesn't help argue the case for the longevity of individual humans. The case for that is mostly that we just want to live. We have our reasons. Many feel they have something to fear beyond their incarnation. Many believe they have something to look forward to should they live a good life. Some just enjoy being a conscious part of whatever life is. It has it's problems (like suffering) but we find enjoyment in finding solutions. If our solutions have problems, our lives have purpose. The problem with death is the suffering.

Even if death itself were only ever entirely painless and voluntary, it would still cause suffering because there would be no 'life expectency' to give those around you a sense that your time has come, that you had a good run, that it's okay to let go. No, "Your time" never comes. You could always run farther. It's not okay to let go because you're choosing to let me go. You're making the choice to make me let go of you.

Because a person's dying or not dying invariably affects the suffering of others - positive and/or negative - each person retains the prerogative to determine how much suffering they attempt to cause (or alleviate). As fallible beings, even a person (or any number of people) with the best intentions could effectively cause endless suffering for others. So, the only path for error correction to alleviate the potentially endless suffering that endless life creates is murder...which is bad.

Natural death is a solution. There are problems with it because problems are inevitable. Suffering is one of the problems but we can't solve the problem by throwing out our underlying solution.

[snoopy]

Well structured and easy to follow. I feel like I just read something from The Atlantic. Glad I read it.

[cozy]

Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant.

The dragon is an analogy for any kind of biological death. I think this is a good rebuttal on its own. But, I’ll write some more.

There is no such thing as a natural death: nothing that happens to a man is ever natural, since his presence calls the world into question. All men must die: but for every man his death is an accident and, even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation.

Simone de Beauvoir, A Very Easy Death

On suffering.

I think people get suffering mixed up with struggling. Struggling is inevitable, suffering is not. But, the tricky thing is, an enjoyable struggle for one person may be suffering for another. This brings us back to coercion and what’s wrong with education, too. Once you start telling other people that their suffering is justified on their behalf, you’ve now made the same logical step that has lead to some of the greatest crimes against humanity. Suffering is not virtuous.

Death and Emotions

We may have to die eventually. But ‘eventually’ has been ‘around a 100 years old’ for far too long.

Any conversation about when someone should die is also an argument to avoid progress in human longevity around however that person is dying. These hangups in our culture are so deep that despite our progress in so many other areas as a civilization, we have made practically no advancement in longevity.

It’s taboo to live longer than a 100 or so, ESPECIALLY if one were to do so healthy-ly and wealthy-ly. Imagine the backlash if Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos lived obviously happy wealthy lives until 200. And yet, progress has to start somewhere. There has to be someone, or a small group of people, living to 200 before anyone else can, and that person is likely going to need to be rich, because novel technologies are expensive until they can be made cheaper. But the economics are stupid to talk about in that way once you consider all the ideas that people will create between 100 and 200c years old, and the less strained the healthcare system would be, and so on.

So, we should take it personally when anyone dies. Seriously. Anyone. Arguments about when someone should die, or how we can accept the inevitability, or accept that they are gone, are arguments for not taking death personally. It’s a way to avoid having it be your problem (it becomes nameless, Gods will, or the Universes will)—it ‘had to happen and there’s nothing that could have been done’.

On a side note: It’s no wonder to me why so much metal music features themes of death and related spiritual symbols, because that music touches deep contradictions in our understanding of death.

I’m not saying feel like a failure and beat yourself up, I’m saying don’t anesthetize yourself to stop fighting. “Rage against the dying of the light.” Agreement and acceptance that end the fight are emotional compromise, a way to avoid feeling hatred for diseases and bad ideas, it’s a way to avoid solving a problem. It’s numbing. Pacifying. It’s possible to just live your life and not want people to die, and also not be sad all the time. Mourn those that have died and fight for those that are alive. Acceptance is doesn’t mean give up, it just means we have more evidence that we don’t want that something sucks, but is fixable.

Death and consciousness

“It's that living forever IS the problem; Death is the solution.”

Josh

‘Living forever’ is a problem for who, or what? Is that a problem for people? So you don’t want people to live forever? That makes you sound like God. Deciding when people should die or not. And once a tribe of people stands in and makes the determination, well, we end up with gas chambers and such. (See the trains in the dragon video.)

Living ‘forever’ isn’t a problem or a solution, it’s a possible open ended process of continuous error correction. Forever isn’t a thing, it’s a process, like a things, actually. There are no things, everything is constantly in flux.

But I do agree that death is a solution—for evolution. People contain multitudes, animals do not. If an animals makes (or contains in DNA or whatever) an error, it’s easier for that animal to not procreate and die to solve the problem. Animals that can avoid that error in some other way (because often problems are spread throughout the extended phenotype to other creatures sharing the same ecosystem, like the reef that fish live and hide in), will replicate and the knowledge held in their DNA will be preserved.

This is a huge waste of energy for preserving and improving knowledge. It’s fun and nice to have nature, and I’m not saying get rid of evolution—but evolutionary thinking when it comes to human life is immoral (this shouldn’t be controversial, eugenics was an honest but terrible epistemological mistake). But, what if knowledge could be encoded in some other form, and the errors could be destroyed by some other process in a virtual environment? Well, now you have consciousness.

Our mind is like an entire universe of ‘natural’ error correction. It’s if there are planets full of species with varying ideas competing in our mind. And further, there are species of ideas in every human’s mind that only exist there! When a person dies, it’s as if an entire galaxy of Earth-like planets, filled with life, are extinguished.

————-

[Edit to add this on the long plane ride]

This is not even an abstract or theoretical conversation, by the way, there are real institutional moats to progress in solving suffering.

Here’s the original post:
https://x.com/alanlparker/status/1831717051951460457?s=46&t=sIpKBCuKb5KrP4r8h75OXQ

The study directly, for anyone boycotting X:
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/12/9/958#

Here’s my opinion, the same as the person here: https://x.com/daniellefong/status/1832113615673196962?s=46&t=sIpKBCuKb5KrP4r8h75OXQ

A woman gets breast cancer and wants to experiment on herself with experimental treatments she developed herself as an expert in the field. Was this unethical?

[snoopy]

I have some questions and points to interject (hope you don’t mind!)…

“There is no such thing as a natural death: nothing that happens to a man is ever natural…” - Cody

Does this mean that death is supernatural?

“...since his presence calls the world into question.” - Cody

What does it mean for the presence of someone to ‘call the world into question’? As in ‘the world is not real’? Or ‘I’m living in a simulation’?

“All men must die: but for every man his death is an accident and, even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation.” - Cody

If all men MUST die, how is it an unjustifiable violation? These two statements seem to be at odds.

“I think people get suffering mixed up with struggling. Struggling is inevitable, suffering is not. But, the tricky thing is, an enjoyable struggle for one person may be suffering for another. This brings us back to coercion and what’s wrong with education, too. Once you start telling other people that their suffering is justified on their behalf, you’ve now made the same logical step that has lead to some of the greatest crimes against humanity. Suffering is not virtuous.” - Cody

If you replace ‘education’ with ‘religion’, this makes perfect sense. However, standard modern education systems do not have coercion as any part of its foundation. But Catholic teaching, not only has coercion at its foundation, it outwardly states that suffering is virtuous.

“Any conversation about when someone should die is also an argument to avoid progress in human longevity around however that person is dying.” - Cody

I don’t know anyone among my family or friends who’ve ever had such a conversation. Maybe about when someone MIGHT die, but never about when someone SHOULD die. After all, based on my family history and my lifestyle, I might die in my mid-90’s. I can’t think of any conversation where “when I SHOULD die” might come up.

“These hangups in our culture are so deep that despite our progress in so many other areas as a civilization, we have made practically no advancement in longevity. “ - Cody

This is the second part of your paragraph. Since I don’t think people talking about when someone “should die” is a widespread topic among families and friends, and whole communities, in the modern world, I guess I don’t think it’s a hangup in our culture.

But I beg to differ on the last 8 words, though. In 1900, global average life expectancy was only about 32 years. As of 2021, global average life expectancy reached 71 years. There have been advances in medicine, public health(vaccines, antibiotics, sanitation), improved nutrition, living standards, etc. And that’s just in 120 years. That’s but a blip on the timeline of human existence.

“So, we should take it personally when anyone dies. Seriously. Anyone. Arguments about when someone should die, or how we can accept the inevitability, or accept that they are gone, are arguments for not taking death personally. It’s a way to avoid having it be your problem (it becomes nameless, Gods will, or the Universes will)—it ‘had to happen and there’s nothing that could have been done’. “ - Cody

Again, I’ve never had or heard a conversation about when someone should die. So I’m afraid I can’t follow the logic after that statement. But I can say, with caveats of course, life is generally preferable to death, and longer life is generally preferable to a shorter life. But what does it mean to take death personally? What exactly does that require of the average Joe?

[Josh]

Thanks to both of you for your feedback. Let me respond to Cody first.

ON STRUGGLING VS. SUFFERING

I absolutely acknowledge the difference between struggling and suffering and the fact that people get them mixed up.

Humans often can avoid suffering - often unless doing so would subsequently cause them greater suffering - often regardless of whether it would subsequently cause them greater suffering. - often unless doing so would cause others to suffer - and often regardless of whether it would subsequently cause others to suffer.

The question of whether it's always best to avoid suffering still remains? If we can guarantee that all suffering of all entities which have the capacity to suffer WILL be avoided for the rest of eternity, maybe the answer is yes. Until then, we talk about where rainbows come from.

Still, I think your point stands. You can tell someone that it's always darkest before the dawn. But you can't really lock them in a basement and tell them that. When I say suffering prevents future suffering I'm thinking something like a 5-year-old who stands too close to a pan full of shrimp deep frying when one explodes spattering his face with hot oil won't need to be told not to monkey around in the kitchen. Thus, he's less likely to experience a situation where he carelessly swats the pan handle scalding half of his face and his mother's left leg with hot oil. Not every kid has that experience but most mothers know that some do. Do mothers spatter their children's faces with hot oil? No, they usually just say, "Don't monkey around in the kitchen" and hope for the best.

Yes, it's tricky that the delineation between struggling and suffering is not clear even to oneself, that it's different for each person AND that it's not static - it changes over years of reimagining our past experinces and imagining how our actions will affect the experinces of others. And yet we still carelessly project our own interpretations of our own struggling/suffering upon what we think others will or do experience.

Humans often can't avoid suffering. Even trickier than what we imagine our influence to be is what our influence is perceived to be (if it can be perceived at all). We can't always perceive how our experiences are affected by others. Knowing who is causing our suffering doesn't mean knowing their motivation. Knowing their motivation doesn't mean understanding the full context of whatever it was that led up to their motivation. A single act of malevolence from a single malevolent entity will never be an adequate explanation for anyone's suffering. Thus, we simply can't always perceive the true genesis of suffering. And, if we can't perceive it, we can't avoid it.

OTHER CLARIFICATIONS
I expect and accept that the richest will always get the credit for being first. If Bezos said he wanted to live to 200, I'd still happily fund him by continuing to shop on Amazon. If they sold longevity on Amazon, I would only buy it if they also sold vitality. It's not so much about how long a person lives but how long they would like to live.

I absolutely want to live forever, even if no one else wanted to - even if everyone else did but no one else wanted me to (not that everyone would just let me). That doesn't mean that I'll always feel that way, but I do at this point. Also, I absolutely think that everyone who wants to live forever should be able to. I just don't think they'll always want to and I think others should be okay with that. Many would feel stuck in some Black Mirroresque perpetual purgatory. Many elderly people already feel that way. And it's not just that their bodies and minds are failing. Even if we focussed on solving all of the problems of human biology and ended up solving them all, we would have missed the point.

evolutionary thinking when it comes to human life is immoral - Cody

My eyebrows hit the ceiling when I read this. I've always thought of evolution as pretty irrelavent to humans but 'immoral' is solid gold. Humans are not their biology. Humans are not their individual instantiations. Humankind is its ideas. The creative capacity to develop those ideas goes beyond evolution. So, the human mind evolved but, if this product of evolution is insufficient as a medium for human ideas, why do we insist on staying bound to it?

RESPONSES

‘Living forever’ is a problem for who, or what? Is that a problem for people? So you don’t want people to live forever? That makes you sound like God. Deciding when people should die or not. And once a tribe of people stands in and makes the determination, well, we end up with gas chambers and such. - Cody

This is sensationalist drivel. I didn't say any of that. What I did say is in the three paragraphs that follow "Death is the solution" supplemented by my response to your "evolutionary thinking when it comes to human life is immoral". Besides, if you agree that death is a solution for evolution - which the human mind is a product of - you can only assume that it's not a decent solution for the evolution of ideas. We won't actually know until enough of us reach escape velocity. I think anyone who wants to give that a shot should. That doesn't mean everyone should. Once a tribe of people stands in and makes the determination...

A woman gets breast cancer and wants to experiment on herself with experimental treatments she developed herself as an expert in the field. Was this unethical? - Cody

Someone thought it was unethical for a woman to treat her own breast cancer? Fuck'em! Someone thought it was unethical for a man to grow breasts? Fuck'em! Someone doesn't want to live in a world with a 200-year-old Bezos? Fuck'em!

So, we should take it personally when anyone dies. Seriously. Anyone. Arguments about when someone should die, or how we can accept the inevitability, or accept that they are gone, are arguments for not taking death personally. It’s a way to avoid having it be your problem (it becomes nameless, Gods will, or the Universes will)—it ‘had to happen and there’s nothing that could have been done’. - Cody

This is worth a number of responses. I just couldn't decide on one that I was comfortable with.

As for the fable, it's an excellent fable in that it's open to multiple interpretations. For example, the dragon could represent humankind and the humans could represent the 300 million cattle slaughtered every year by humans.

As for the quote, I don't really follow the logic of it. It must be missing context that Tolkien is aware of but I'm not. Maybe you can elaborate on your interpretation of it?

[Josh]

In response to Fidel...

However, standard modern education systems do not have coercion as any part of its foundation. - Fidel

Let's not forget about the 'fuck school' thread.

I don’t know anyone among my family or friends who’ve ever had such a conversation. Maybe about when someone MIGHT die, but never about when someone SHOULD die. After all, based on my family history and my lifestyle, I might die in my mid-90’s. I can’t think of any conversation where “when I SHOULD die” might come up. - Fidel

I think people should be open with their loved ones about what they want for themselves throughout their lives up to and including their deaths. And I think loved ones should be respectful and understanding. Have you guys ever seen "My Sister's Keeper"? Great movie!

In 1900, global average life expectancy was only about 32 years. As of 2021, global average life expectancy reached 71 years. There have been advances in medicine, public health(vaccines, antibiotics, sanitation), improved nutrition, living standards, etc. And that’s just in 120 years. - Fidel

Yeah, it seems to me like advancements in quality of life aren't keeping up with longevity. Wasn't there supposedly a time in history when people lived to be 200 anyway?

[snoopy]

"Let's not forget about the 'fuck school' thread." - Josh

Yeah. I'm pretty sure I was pro-school in that thread too. I might have mentioned at a TFD game day in the past that we already know what no public access to education looks like. We've run that experiment a thousand times on various populations recent and far in the past. The data is in, and I am pro-school, warts and all. In this thread I specifically put modern education systems on the table, as I know past versions have had far more flaws. The point is, improvements on a system are better than throwing out the whole system.

"I think people should be open with their loved ones about what they want for themselves throughout their lives up to and including their deaths. And I think loved ones should be respectful and understanding. Have you guys ever seen "My Sister's Keeper"? Great movie!" - Josh

I agree. And I will mark that movie down on my watch list.

"Yeah, it seems to me like advancements in quality of life aren't keeping up with longevity. Wasn't there supposedly a time in history when people lived to be 200 anyway?" -Josh

No. Just in the mythology of biblical tales and other regional legends. I doubt viruses, bacteria, disasters, wars, barber shop health care, rotting teeth, and poor diets, predators(just to name a few) would have allowed for more than the averages we know of, much less 200 years.

[cozy]

In 1900, global average life expectancy was only about 32 years. As of 2021, global average life expectancy reached 71 years. There have been advances in medicine, public health(vaccines, antibiotics, sanitation), improved nutrition, living standards, etc. And that’s just in 120 years. -Fidel

Yeah, it seems to me like advancements in quality of life aren't keeping up with longevity. Wasn't there supposedly a time in history when people lived to be 200 anyway? -Josh

There was? I had no idea? When, where, how many people, what was the culture like? So many questions! I've never heard of a place where a significant number of people of a given culture/institution lived to 200, that's wild.

But, Fidel's accurate statistic isn't about longevity, it's about the mean age rising while the max age remains about the same. It's primarily influenced by declining infant mortality rates. What I want to see is that number rise not just from declining infant mortality rates, but also because people are living longer, 200, 300, 400, 500 years old, to start. My argument is that it's taboo to live 'too long'.

—————————————————————

Both of you guys had problems with this poetic quote from Simone De Beauvoir's memoir about her day to day life dealing with her mother's death, and later quoted by Tolkien in the video I linked—so I feel like that's worth talking about. The quote again for reference.

There is no such thing as a natural death: nothing that happens to a man is ever natural, since his presence calls the world into question. All men must die: but for every man his death is an accident and, even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation.

Simone de Beauvoir, A Very Easy Death

**"Nothing that happens to a man is ever natural"

**“For most of the time during which anatomically modern humans have existed, there were fewer of them on Earth than there are FLYING IN THE SKY at any given instant today.”

— @DavidDeutschOxf (the quote post)

"Mr Musk hopes to make the same true of humans NOT EVEN ON EARTH in his lifetime."

— @DavidDeutschOxf (reply to post of us his own quote)

We've talked about the word "natural" before. I think it too often becomes a euphemism for what people are comfortable with. Is consciousness natural? Well, it abides by natural laws, it's not metaphysical, we at least agree on this. So, if whatever is happening in our mind is natural, what about the things we creates that evolution hasn't or possibly can't? Are laptops and iPhones natural?

Sometimes new things make people uncomfortable, and when some inevitable problem arises from that new thing, people (not you guys) say it's unnatural and we need to return and preserve our old way of life.

Take with devices at school (or at most homes for that matter). [Sorry, I always come back to education because I have two small children who are constantly being told what's "natural" when it comes to learning.] Despite the fact that nearly all adults constantly use screens all day, screens are not allowed as a general pedagogical tool in Japan, or for children to freely explore on their own. It's completely irrational. I won't take this further, that's for the 'Fuck School' thread.

So, instead consider what people say and put into policy regarding geoengineering. Why is geoengineering, that is, humans intentionally controlling the climate on a global scale, taboo? How are we going to terraform Mars and become an interplanetary civilization if we don't take terraforming our own planet seriously? Or is becoming an interplanetary civilization, or even being a civilization with rules at all, also "unnatural"? ["zionism" and "decolonization" thread could start here]

Since his presence calls the world into question

So, what often gets written off by the word "natural" is constantly being thrown into question by what people do. Any time we come up with some rule about nature, people have a knack for finding the caveat.

**All men must die: but for every man his death is an accident...

**Problems are inevitable, problems are soluble. Problems that lead to death are also soluble. There's always going to be new ways to die, so even if we cure cancer or get cybernetic bodies and so on, we'll still face death through other problems. Those problems are soluble, too, though. So, reason that someone dies is that they simply lacked the necessary knowledge to prevent a death. If the dying person could have had it, they would have wanted it.

...even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation

Even for things like suicide, this rings true for me, those people lack knowledge about optimism—a great chapter in the Beginning of Infinity, by the way! Because death is a matter of not having the right knowledge at the right time, it's always an accident.

[more to come later, I have to leave now, but maybe this is more than enough to continue the conversation]

[snoopy]

“My argument is that it's taboo to live 'too long'.” – Cody

Oh no way dude! It has NEVER been taboo to live too long. Human history shows non-stop reverence for not just living too long, but for unmitigated immortality. Even modern sciences that study human longevity are driven by our ancestors’ quests to extend the time limits of the human body. When I think of ‘taboo’, I think of things like incest or cannibalism. Not living too long.

_“There is no such thing as a natural death: nothing that happens to a man is ever natural, since his presence calls the world into question. All men must die: but for every man his death is an accident and, even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation.” – Cody
_

Yeah. This still sounds like Deepak Chopra to me.

“...what about the things we creates that evolution hasn't or possibly can't? Are laptops and iPhones natural?” – Cody

Yes. They are. Just as natural as a dam a beaver creates, except that we manipulate more ingredients for our creations. The environmental disruption they cause may be larger than beaver dams, but that’s a different subject.

“So, instead consider what people say and put into policy regarding geoengineering. Why is geoengineering, that is, humans intentionally controlling the climate on a global scale, taboo?” – Cody

It isn’t. UCLA Emmett Institute, University of Calgary, IASS-Potsdam, and the University of Oxford have robust studies, research and technology departments working with and creating cutting-edge shit in the field of geoengineering.

“So, what often gets written off by the word "natural" is constantly being thrown into question by what people do. Any time we come up with some rule about nature, people have a knack for finding the caveat.” – Cody

Yeah. I still don’t know what that means. Maybe the premise isn’t on solid ground so the whole claim sounds weird.

“Problems are inevitable, problems are soluble. Problems that lead to death are also soluble. There's always going to be new ways to die, so even if we cure cancer or get cybernetic bodies and so on, we'll still face death through other problems. Those problems are soluble, too, though. So, reason that someone dies is that they simply lacked the necessary knowledge to prevent a death. If the dying person could have had it, they would have wanted it.” – Cody

I can understand this. However, I’d say, with a smirk on my face, “Call me when you get all that figured out”...and I’m not expecting a call anytime soon. LOL.

“Even for things like suicide, this rings true for me, those people lack knowledge about optimism—a great chapter in the Beginning of Infinity, by the way! Because death is a matter of not having the right knowledge at the right time, it's always an accident.” – Cody

Yeah. This also fits into the “Call me when you get all that figured out” category.

EDIT: Just want to clarify that "you" in my last two replies is the general you, and not Cody.

[Josh]

Yeah, it seems to me like advancements in quality of life aren't keeping up with longevity. Wasn't there supposedly a time in history when people lived to be 200 anyway? - Josh

No. Just in the mythology of biblical tales and other regional legends. I doubt viruses, bacteria, disasters, wars, barber shop health care, rotting teeth, and poor diets, predators(just to name a few) would have allowed for more than the averages we know of, much less 200 years. - Fidel

Nah, it'd be cool but, as Fidel pointed out, that's just some bullshit I heard from a book I didn't care enough about to follow up on. Sorry about that.

----------

Thanks for your insight on the quote. Those are very cool perspectives on people in the sky and off world!

But... nothing that happens to a man (including flying, living off world, consciousness, laptops, iPhones, hair growth, sneezing) is ever natural? We already all disagree with that statement, right? Since none of that is metaphysical and all abides by natural laws? Shouldn't it be, "everything that happens to a man is always natural" or at least something less hyperbolic?

And... 'accident' doesn't mean the same thing as 'unjustifiable violation'. Maybe this is also just too hyperbolic. I mean saying, "every man's death is either an accident or an unjustifiable violation" would make more sense but, violation of what exactly? Natural laws? Do you consider death metaphysical?

So, reason that someone dies is that they simply lacked the necessary knowledge to prevent a death. If the dying person could have had it, they would have wanted it. - Cody

This is simply not true for every person. This is one person projecting what's true for them onto every other person. It's the same as saying, "if every person could have been born with both male and female sex organs, they would have wanted it." (Name that logical fallacy)

----------

Sorry, I always come back to education - Cody

Don't be sorry. I'm still trying to get you to engage in a serious conversation about it with me.

[cozy]

Fidel, do you think it's taboo if a company does it and makes a profit from it? Maybe you don't, but especially if it's a rich, say, white man living to 200 and having sex with 20-30 year old women the whole time, having many children, and then also being one of the richest men in the world. Would that be taboo? Because I think that's a great way to proceed with longevity research.

I think making 'too much' profit is taboo. I think that taboo is wrong.

UCLA Emmett Institute, University of Calgary, IASS-Potsdam, and the University of Oxford have robust studies, research and technology departments working with and creating cutting-edge shit in the field of geoengineering.

Note that you don't mention a for profit organization here. Is there a reason for that? I think it's the same taboo.

------------------------------------

Also, Fidel, you've cited me as the source of the quote despite me trying to give credit where it was due multiple times. lol. That's fine, I'm flattered, but I didn't write it! Though, I do agree with it, poetically. So maybe that's why you're attributing it to me? I don't think it's even hyperbolic, just poetic. I like to feel things, and feelings are integral to how we make decisions, so I thought the quote was more than appropriate for the conversation.

The feeling I get from the poetry seems closer to the truth than trying to talk about it pedantically. In fact, every time I read it I feel a little something different, each time I get a little something new. Especially considering the way people use the word "natural" colloquially versus something like "the natural sciences". I am trying to point at that contradiction of usage, something I think the excerpt is trying to do as well. Maybe think of a southern man talking about a gay couple saying, "That's just unnatural." I'm not talking about how everything is literally natural, I'm talking about how people decide what's right and what isn't, and then after the fact take some ideas as "natural" to hold it above criticism.

Everything we do that could be found in nature, or that we do that no other organism does, is colored by the fact that we are conscious, and it's a qualitative difference to all other matter in the universe. So, there's 'natural' and then there's this other level of natural that we inhabit which the word 'natural' does capture because we don't have an explanation for it yet. I suspect we'll be arguing about that forever, too, so nothing we do will ever be natural like the rest of the matter in the universe, or natural in the evolutionary sense, or natural in the rule of thumb sense.

------------------------------------

This also fits into the “Call me when you get all that figured out” category.

Ok. But it will probably be a product that you actively have to seek out, like Ozempic or something, and I won't have to call you, I'm sure you'll hear about, say, a cure for cancer from someone else before you hear it from me. In the meantime, research institutions and government agencies are funded by for-profit businesses. And, for-profit businesses are the ones who will have to sort out all the logistics. So, they'll be the ones contacting you, I guess?

------------------------------------

And... 'accident' doesn't mean the same thing as 'unjustifiable violation'. Maybe this is also just too hyperbolic. I mean saying, "every man's death is either an accident or an unjustifiable violation" would make more sense but, violation of what exactly? Natural laws? Do you consider death metaphysical?

A moral violation. A moral wrong, is my interpretation. A loss beyond calculation.

------------------------------------

It's the same as saying, "if every person could have been born with both male and female sex organs, they would have wanted it."

Sorry I don't follow, I can't see how it's the same thing. Maybe my English was bad, let me try to re-state it.

I think if someone is able to live their life, and that means grow knowledge and follow their light—they're not going to want to die permanently. [Though people want to die all the time in virtualizations they are free to interact with (video games) What this has to do with choosing multiple biological sex organs before birth, I have no idea.]

My interpretation of your response is probably wrong, but I gather you want to say something like "There are some people want to die no matter what"? I don't think a conscious being comes into the world wanting to die no matter what, or even to see death as a solution to a problem. They're just in the flow of learning and growing, probably even from 24 weeks or whatever doctors say. It's stuff that comes up along the way that creates hangups and then people create pessimistic explanations about reality.

...Still trying to interpret your argument. There may be some situation where the only solution someone can come up with is to martyr themselves, like sacrifice themselves for a greater good. In that situation, there was a way to avoid getting to that point, but they didn't create the knowledge fast enough, and worshiping martyrs is not a good way to avoid martyrdom in the future. That would entrench and glorify it, no?