Thread: Fear of death - A rational fear?

That is why I am studying engineering in collage, because I want to work and help develop this technology. Which A, probably pays well so i can afford the technology if it is expensive. B, means that I have a chance to knowing how it works so I could recreate it even if it was banned or something. C, if I am involved in it and it is limited, then I should have priority access for being so close to it.

So even given your concerns, I think it is plausible for me to try for such a thing. Though to be honest, I don't share those concerns. I have considered them and thought of them, but I don't think they will happen. I think the technologies will be available to everyone. No government controls have really been successful at any real control on the research and development of the technologies we have today.

Also I think that as the technology advances we are going to enter a post scarcity time, where money may disappear and so that isn't going to be a real factor in who gets it and who doesn't. Everything will start to be available to everyone because it will be so cheap to make.

Well, your optimism and drive are admirable. My views are plagued by dystopian elements. Though the important question regarding the cessation of procreation to allow for mainstream life extension stands independent of that. Your views?

A lot of people bring that up, and say we will be very overpopulated if everyone was immortal, but I don't think that is really the case. For one, people are not going to reproduce at current rates if they can live forever. In fact the birth rates are falling all across the world in all developed countries. The longer people live and more healthy they are the less likely they are to have children.

If you were immortal, I doubt you would want to have a ton of children. You would probably have very few and take the time to really care for that one, and you probably wouldn't start having children until you are extremely old by current standards, because you would want to be as prepared as you could be.

I think this is a reasonable prediction because it is already happening and people are not even immortal yet. So growth is going to be very slow, and that will make things sustainable.

Also I think as we get more technology the amount of people we can comfortably support is going to go way up as well. So it is going to be less of an issue if there is a lot of people.

Also in the short term, it isn't going to matter much at all. We will have people immune to disease and stuff but people will still likely have accidents, or choose to not take the medicine for whatever reason.

Doesn't reality serve more purpose (relatively speaking) if we die and have children? This is evolution, after all. We are able to continue to improve by continuing to spread and mix our genes. We are able to create something greater than ourself. And once that's done, we leave the inferior body, but our legacy lives on in our children.

So I would not choose to give up procreation nor live forever. For one, I think having children and dying is evolutionarily superior to living forever so my offspring would be evolutionarily superior to people who chose to live forever 500 years from now. For two, I think life would become much less meaningful if we didn't have an end-date creeping in. The fact that everything must end makes everything sacred. It makes this moment sacred because this moment won't last forever. If we lived forever, Carpe Diem would lose its meaning. Procrastination would become the norm.

Just compare elves to humans in fantasy books. Humans are always striving, elves are more passive. When you measure you lifespan in centuries or even thousands of years, different things become meaningful. And elves aren't interested in the same things as humans are, who live such short lives in comparison.

Fear of death is justified, because it's the loss of potential goods. By dying (not of old age), you're losing several years of enjoyment. I'd fear that, just like I feared mom grounding me from videogames for a week. Loss of potential goods.

Also, as already said, there's technological potential to live longer. As a human who enjoys living, I like the impetus fear of death provides in this area.

Also, if you die early, you can't take care of your kids as well. From an evolutionary standpoint (like the other fears), this aids the species, so it's rational.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Doesn't reality serve more purpose (relatively speaking) if we die and have children? This is evolution, after all. We are able to continue to improve by continuing to spread and mix our genes. We are able to create something greater than ourself. And once that's done, we leave the inferior body, but our legacy lives on in our children.

So I would not choose to give up procreation nor live forever. For one, I think having children and dying is evolutionarily superior to living forever so my offspring would be evolutionarily superior to people who chose to live forever 500 years from now. For two, I think life would become much less meaningful if we didn't have an end-date creeping in. The fact that everything must end makes everything sacred. It makes this moment sacred because this moment won't last forever. If we lived forever, Carpe Diem would lose its meaning. Procrastination would become the norm.

Just compare elves to humans in fantasy books. Humans are always striving, elves are more passive. When you measure you lifespan in centuries or even thousands of years, different things become meaningful. And elves aren't interested in the same things as humans are, who live such short lives in comparison.

If we live forever, I'd want to spend it with you. Hang out with you, for centuries. In a beautiful healthy body and intact mind, with millions of alien races to meet (entire histories and cultures, experiences and art to learn, chronicle, and share!), stars to explore and planets to terraform, friends to make and keep everywhere, from a magnificent multitude of backgrounds.

(Only read until page 2 with these replies, will reply more later).

Originally Posted by Alric

Do you fear having your arm cut off? Well if your arm is cut off there is no pain because your arm doesn't exist. That is what your argument sounds like to me. The fear of death is the most rational fear there is.

If your arm is cut off, you still exist and have to deal with the negative consequences of not having an arm, not to mention the pain. With death, you aren't there anymore to experience any loss or pain.

Originally Posted by Phion

Pragmatically speaking, self-preservation is important because I value life and have a modicum of self-worth

I understand that and definitely feel it myself. But the thing is, the only reason we'd ever want to preserve anything would be because it makes us feel good. I want to preserve my friend's life because I'd be upset if he died. But the preservation of one's own life is different. How does it make sense to value your life, when if you lost it you'd experience no loss?

Originally Posted by Alric

If you think life has any value at all, then of course you are going to fear losing it. I personally think a persons life is the most valuable thing they have, and so losing it is the worst thing that could ever happen to a person. So fearing it is very rational.

Same response as above.

Originally Posted by ZeraCook

I think ceasing to exist would be the most peaceful thing ever.

Even saying that it's peaceful might not make any sense, since there's no you anymore to experience any 'peace'.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Another good example is Alan Moore, writer of V for Vendetta, Watchmen and From Hell. He talks about pure art. The only pure way to create art is for itself, not for the projected reward.

I think there might be something to this. Even when someone creates something for the praise they want to receive, they have to pretend they did it for other reasons.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

(Only read until page 2 with these replies, will reply more later).
Even saying that it's peaceful might not make any sense, since there's no you anymore to experience any 'peace'.

True I wouldn't experience peace so to say but being neutral and not feeling anything would be more peace then living life.

That isn't true at all about evolution. Technological evolution is far outpacing biological evolution. Humans are not really evolving at all any more because we have removed most of the environmental pressures that drive evolution. If I lived forever I would easily be far superior than any child you could produce. It would take you hundreds of thousands of years to do what I could do in 10 or 15.

For example, it could take 300 thousand years and your line of children produces humans we far beyond normal humans ability to see. I could probably design new glasses that give the same vision in less than a dozen. You take half a million years and your children now has two hearts. I replace my heart with an artificial one that is superior to both your hearts, and that will probably happen in 30 years from now.

There isn't a single evolutionary advantage you could breed into a human, that I couldn't easily surpass with technology in a fraction of the time. Within hundreds of thousands of years of breeding, I will probably have a fully robot body that is million times more efficient than your biological one. There isn't even a contest. Biological evolution is so insanely slow it doesn't have a chance in hell to even keep up with technology.

As for the elf human thing, it is obvious that life is more important to the elves. Usually the elves are far more caring and protective of each other and each life is sacred to them. The humans are always killing each other. The elves usually have the far superior point of view.

Originally Posted by Alric

That isn't true at all about evolution. Technological evolution is far outpacing biological evolution. Humans are not really evolving at all any more because we have removed most of the environmental pressures that drive evolution. If I lived forever I would easily be far superior than any child you could produce. It would take you hundreds of thousands of years to do what I could do in 10 or 15.

For example, it could take 300 thousand years and your line of children produces humans we far beyond normal humans ability to see. I could probably design new glasses that give the same vision in less than a dozen. You take half a million years and your children now has two hearts. I replace my heart with an artificial one that is superior to both your hearts, and that will probably happen in 30 years from now.

Only If you believe in the way Darwin Said Evolution came about, but some due to new studies some scientists think that evolution comes about in bursts where things evolve really quick I Don't know what the theory is called. They say following a shocking or traumatic event a species will evolve. I remember when the BP spill happened I read and article in school where some fish were evolving to be able to live in the oil.

Plus it takes a shorter time for a small population to evolve compared to a larger population and since most likely only a small portion would not accept the "Immortality Drug" then they would evolve much quicker then humans have been.

And judging from the way things have been going you said it yourself, we eliminated most the things that help boost evolution, but i think we only stopped the need for our bodies to evolve, but not the mind. Evolution of the mind is really key now.

Originally Posted by Alric

That isn't true at all about evolution. Technological evolution is far outpacing biological evolution. Humans are not really evolving at all any more because we have removed most of the environmental pressures that drive evolution. If I lived forever I would easily be far superior than any child you could produce. It would take you hundreds of thousands of years to do what I could do in 10 or 15.

For example, it could take 300 thousand years and your line of children produces humans we far beyond normal humans ability to see. I could probably design new glasses that give the same vision in less than a dozen. You take half a million years and your children now has two hearts. I replace my heart with an artificial one that is superior to both your hearts, and that will probably happen in 30 years from now.

There isn't a single evolutionary advantage you could breed into a human, that I couldn't easily surpass with technology in a fraction of the time. Within hundreds of thousands of years of breeding, I will probably have a fully robot body that is million times more efficient than your biological one. There isn't even a contest. Biological evolution is so insanely slow it doesn't have a chance in hell to even keep up with technology.

As for the elf human thing, it is obvious that life is more important to the elves. Usually the elves are far more caring and protective of each other and each life is sacred to them. The humans are always killing each other. The elves usually have the far superior point of view.

Not only is your view of evolution based on antiquated Gradualism, as Zeracook pointed out, but you're also being very reductionist. Evolution is more than just genetics, its about ethos. The more people learn, the less capable they become of learning more. Not just because their brains age and become less capable of acquiring new information, but because they develop a model for existence and it becomes harder to fill this model with new information that may contradict it. In other words, as people acquire information, they become more closed minded. Even if someone is open minded, they are still defined by their experiences which present a unique worldview. No matter how relatively open minded you are, your own unique perspective limits your potential to change.

This is what makes fresh minds so important. With fresh minds, the ethos can evolve in ways it could not with a society of immortals. Perhaps you could achieve this by giving yourself a mindwipe, by why not just die and allow evolution to take place on a genetic level, as well?

And finally, your view on evolution is basic because you think of very black and white qualities, such as having two hearts or improving eyesight. Evolution is much more subtle. The diversity my offspring would gain from being of two parents would give them advantage in ways you could not even fathom. No amount of technology, which is inherently a predictable and organized development, can stand up to the potential that comes from sheer chaos.

No amount of technology, which is inherently a predictable and organized development, can stand up to the potential that comes from sheer chaos.

Three words for you:

Robotic. Immortal. Superbrains.

And how would they be capable of chaos? The main difference between virtual reality and actual reality is chaos. The same goes for a mechanical mind and a biological one, in general.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And how would they be capable of chaos? The main difference between virtual reality and actual reality is chaos. The same goes for a mechanical mind and a biological one, in general.

Because it would function analogously to an organic brain, it would be capable of a similar chaos. I'm actually talking about a synthetic brain, that can break and make connections between things that fuction exactly like neurons. Technology involving qubits makes this type of chaos possible, as well. Additionally, someone who is smarter has more potential to be less predictable. More chaotic.

So yeah. Robotic immortal superbrains.

Imagining that it is possible to make a robotic superbrain, it would miss out on the potential functions of an ordinary human brain. There is something to be said about the power of the subjective mind. A computer brain would wield an emotionless conclusion to its perception, a gestalt of its neural network, a sort of consciously functional unconscious mind. But this is not the same as the human mind, and the potential of a biological brain would not be made obsolete through technology, at least not based on the information you provided.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Imagining that it is possible to make a robotic superbrain, it would miss out on the potential functions of an ordinary human brain. There is something to be said about the power of the subjective mind. A computer brain would wield an emotionless conclusion to its perception, a gestalt of its neural network, a sort of consciously functional unconscious mind. But this is not the same as the human mind, and the potential of a biological brain would not be made obsolete through technology, at least not based on the information you provided.

If it functions exactly like a human brain, but with different atoms, how would the qualia it would experience not be subjective?

It doesn't really matter how fast you think evolution happens, it still can't keep up with technology. Even that idea of evolution happening in quick bursts is very slow. If some animal goes through 20 generations in a year maybe they can show signs of evolution on a short time scale, but 20 generations for humans is 200 years, if everyone has a child at 10 years ago.

The fact is, even with early puberty and cranking out children as soon as possible, it is going to take a very long time for humans to change. Since you are not trying to breed a super race I suspect you are not promoting the idea that people should have children at 10 years old, so its going to take sustainability longer. A normal generation is considered like 20 years. Even if you had evolution take place in one generation technology would out pace you. So absolute best case situation it is still to slow.

Secondly those examples I gave was to show how pointless the changes are. I picked ridiculous changes that would have made large impacts and showed how technology easily beats it. A more realistic situation is that a few thousand years from now your children all have brown hair, your pinky is on average half an inch shorter, your a foot taller and maybe you don't have as much chest hair. Totally pointless stuff that will be irrelevant.

You are totally wrong when it comes to learning as well. Your brain doesn't have a set capacity to learn. You don't fill up your brain with knowledge, and then there is no more room so you can't learn anymore. That is silly. Learning a lot doesn't make learning harder to do.

In fact as you learn you build and create new connections in your brain. The more you have learned the more creative you are and the better you are at connecting different ideas to each other. Older people have more experience and since their brains have more interconnections they can see things that younger people can not.

Also young minds are prone to accepting the ideologies of whatever society they live in. They are not out there creating new and original ideas, they are just absorbing the ideas that they are copying from others. Young people are no more open to new ideas that whatever they were taught to be. On the other hand, older people have enough experiences that they can overcome those old thoughts and think of new original ideas. Older people are better at questioning things, and seeing faults in old thought patterns.

Having great breadth in experiences doesn't limit you, it gives you far more options. If you are presented with a problem and you have seen the problem solved in 8 ways, you stand a better chance at solving the problem than someone who has only seen it solved in one. Even if the problem requires an original idea, your insight gives you the edge in coming up with that original idea.

There doesn't seem to be any advantage to having a 'clean slate' and it just wastes a ton of time and resources reteaching the same things over and over again to new people all the time.

Like I said before, you're being completely black and white in regard to evolution. And it doesn't matter if it can't keep up with technology, in fact the whole approach is irrelevant. Technology is aided by the evolution of ethos. The evolution of technology works side by side the evolution of ideas. And the evolution of ideas does require fresh eyes.

I never said learning makes it harder to learn. And you're also wrong when you say older people are more likely to change than younger people. The opposite is true, as people age they typically become less willing to change. This is why young people are so important. Young people may not have the wisdom to be patient and consider all ideas before drawing conclusions, but being slow to draw conclusions does not necessarily make you open minded. For this, clean slates are still advantageous. They are absorbing information from their culture, yes, but they're doing it in a different, more contemporary way than the generation before them. They are developing their ethos or worldview. This is the gestalt of everything they believe in, and it's not simply the amount of knowledge they hold in their brains. It is the shape of their perception. You view the world from one particular position, but it's completely different from the position the generation before you views the world. This perspective continues to evolve, but it cannot change completely without a blank slate to reabsorb the new values and conditions of the more contemporary society.

Reteaching is as valuable as any other aspect of evolution. Transformation is as vital as preservation. Without transformation, we become stagnant. With stagnation, we become weak. And reteaching is not a waste of time or resources. It enables one to start over and fix old mistakes. For instance when playing an RPG, rather than get stuck with the same RPG over and over again after you already beat it, you can play it again and do better than you did previously because you have a chance to erase all your old mistakes. The same is done in teaching. There's no such thing as reteaching. That implies stagnation and pure repetition. There is only teaching. Everything continues to evolve each and every time.

Technology does not only aid in evolution but is aided by evolution and recycling, by the great transforming universe.

And there are two other points I'd like to bring up, one which I already brought up but you ignored. And this is procrastination. The fact that we die helps motivate us to seize the day. Without death, we have no reason to do anything now. It can all be put off until later. The fact that all structures are impermanent makes them valuable. If they never ended, they would have no value. In fact from a certain existentialist perspective they would cease to exist at all. Things only exist because they are in flux. We die, therefore we can know life.

And another point I'd like to bring up is life continues to be fun because we continue to start over. Maybe from a rigid atheist perspective you believe when you die, that's it, you're over, and maybe that's true. I'm not convinced of that, nor anything else. But even if my consciousness lives on, without my memories it's not really me, it loses my identity. And I'm fine with losing my identity. I like the idea of keeping life interesting by giving life-forms the chance to experience it for the first time, perhaps over and over again. In 50 millions years, if a life form has lived that long, life would become rather stale. Because we start new, life is truly a gift, and because we die, it is a gift we cannot take for granted.

It totally matters if you can't keep up with technology. Evolution builds on itself, and currently humans are moving past biological evolution and all our evolution is going to be based on technology. We will probably be able to alter our bodies and even our genes faster through technology than biological breeding. How does biological evolution effect anything if people can alter their bodies at will with technology?

The RPG's are a good example, because new programmers often recreate old video games when they are learning new things. They think they are being original and creating something new but its just repeating of old stuff. There are ton of new things that are just copies of old. New programmers generally suck, and don't create very original stuff. If you look at the people who are on the cutting edge, who are creating the original content, its the people with experience. People with a lot of experience. And even if you got a young team, there is always a very experienced person leading the group, and giving instructions on what to do.

Lets put it this way. Someone spends 26 years going through schooling to get an advanced degree in physics. They spend 5 years research in some area and then they die. A new person spends 26 years going through the same school and then picks off where the other guy left off. He spends 5 years researching then dies. This happens to 3 more people, for a total of 5 people. They have now spent a total of 25 years of doing original research.

Now another person spends 26 years going through schooling to get an advanced degree in physics. He spends 129 years doing research in an area. Who is going to know more? Not only does this second person have 5 times the amount of time doing the research, but he can draw on all the data he learned to make his researching far more efficient. Even if you thought having a fresh perspective was important, he would simply take a five year vacation at several points during the process and come back with that new view and still be far ahead of the others.

To address your procrastination issue, that isn't an issue at all. Most people are really not motivated to seize the day because they think they will die. If you are motivated that way you are probably having a midlife crisis, and those don't last that long and are often not very productive. Most people simply do not think about death on a day to day biases. For the sake of argument however, lets say it does motivate people. Well it still doesn't matter because people would be motivated out of boredom any way. No one wants to sit around doing nothing at all day long, it is boring. Even if there was no death you would still feel compelled to do stuff.

Your last point seems silly. There are people over a 100 and they are still having fun. People don't stop having fun when they age. Life is fun which is why I want it to keep going on. It is extremely unlikely you will ever run out of fun and interesting things to do. That point is basically saying that I should sacrifice my fun for the sake of others fun. Why should I give up my happiness for others? There isn't even any guarantee that my dying will even make it more fun. In fact if I die a lot of people will be very sad. So why would I sacrifice my fun in order to hurt others? It makes no logical sense.

Let me put it this way. If someone gives you the perfect gift, something you always wanted, something you love. Do you enjoy that gift because you one day think it will be taken away? Or do you enjoy the gift because it was a really great gift? Me, I would enjoy it because its a really great gift. Life is a gift, and so we should hold onto it forever. I don't throw out important items in my life, I don't discard gifts because it makes me like them more. Why would I throw away the most important gift I have ever received.

If you got a huge diamond and gold watch that George Washington wore when he was sworn in as the first president of the US, you would hold on to that with everything. You would do everything in your power to keep that. And it's value doesn't come because you expect someone will one day steal it, it comes from the value of the gift itself. To me it sounds like you are taking your life for granted. You think if you die you can just replace your life with several others, and so dying is no big deal. That is the definition of taking things for granted. The view I hold is taking life extremely seriously.

I've never found the arguments against indefinite lifespans to hold up under scrutiny. Indeed, when you remove cultural biases, many of them, and the assumptions people make on the subject turn out to be quite offensive in my opinion.


Personally, I'll settle for an indefinite lifespan. If someone else prefers to go ahead and die after having children, that's your business.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I've never found the arguments against indefinite lifespans to hold up under scrutiny. Indeed, when you remove cultural biases, many of them, and the assumptions people make on the subject turn out to be quite offensive in my opinion.


Personally, I'll settle for an indefinite lifespan. If someone else prefers to go ahead and die after having children, that's your business.

I think all the rationalization people perform in relation to death deals with the fact that it's currently unpreventable. So the world of progress is drowned out by thousands of years of coping culture.

Alric: [if you seize the day because you know your time is limited] "you are probably having a midlife crisis, and those don't last that long and are often not very productive."

You are dribbling off some of the strangest logic I've ever heard.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And another point I'd like to bring up is life continues to be fun because we continue to start over. Maybe from a rigid atheist perspective you believe when you die, that's it, you're over, and maybe that's true. I'm not convinced of that, nor anything else. But even if my consciousness lives on, without my memories it's not really me, it loses my identity. And I'm fine with losing my identity. I like the idea of keeping life interesting by giving life-forms the chance to experience it for the first time, perhaps over and over again. In 50 millions years, if a life form has lived that long, life would become rather stale. Because we start new, life is truly a gift, and because we die, it is a gift we cannot take for granted.

I'd be alright if reincarnation were true. It'd be awesome if everyone got to be everyone, or something.

But basing a lifestyle on wishful thinking isn't always exactly useful. If it were ever somehow proven (say, by comparing the firing signals of newly developing brains, and seeing if the brain's 'initial conditions,' I'm talking signals and not atoms, were the same), then think of how different we'd behave towards, well, everything else!

But for now, it's just wishful thinking. And the risk is greater than the reward. By believing in reincarnation, you detract attention from improving any one current life, since suicide is an easy and effective escape. If it were proven, you could expect a lot more suicides... But there's no proof. So believing in this is merely your comfort. Like believing you'll win the lottery eventually, that it's in the stars for you. To each his own, except you're opinion contributes to a culture that keeps me from ever getting my robotic immortal superbrain.