Thread: Fear of death - A rational fear?

I remember going to sleep when I was a wee kid thinking to myself "This is what it feels like to die."

Of course, that isn't entirely true... but the concept is similar. After death, you perceive nothing (unless you do, in which case I'm going to hell). I would lay in bed, before or after sleep, thinking about this 'til all hours of the night. I remember getting a little sad at the fact that after death I wouldn't hear music, or see family or friends... but then I realized that the worst part of death comes well before it happens (with the possible exception of the pain that may accompany death). The worst part of death can only exist/be perceived during life. That is... the expectation of death. Seeing death coming. After death, there is no worry. You forget your friends, loves, hates, favorite bands etc.

So with that realization as a child, I am not afraid of death. No matter how soon it comes, it doesn't matter to me. Even if I spend my last months in a hospital bed with terminal illness... it won't matter.

What is more reasonable, in my opinion, is fear of the death of others. Last November my Dad died, and I was afraid for my Mother... for how She'd handle it, and how we could help deal with her debt. Being religious, she handled it "well". Dad set everything up so that Mum would be financially secure after his death... so luckily it all "worked out".

Originally Posted by Alric

I know all about that Zeracook, which is why we should be more careful to stop things from becoming resistant to our medicine. Letting everyone die isn't really a valid option for stopping them from becoming resistant.

Omnis Dei, I been saying that all along. There are many types of evolution and biological is by far the slowest. So why are we focusing on that? Why would you sacrifice technology evolution, which is far superior to boost biological evolution? It really makes no sense.

It is like you are trying to resist evolution as much as possible. All this stuff is clearly pushing us towards longer lived humans, so why resist that? Because biological evolution came first? I think that is kind of silly. Why should we die because we used to die in the past. Why not embrace our medicine and technology, and evolve in the way we were meant to?

I'm not resisting anything. I'm attempting to explain to you that the two go hand in hand. Technological evolution is still connected to biological evolution. It did not surpass it and leave it in the dust. It is catalyzed by it. Everything I've said about it has been an attempt to make this clear to you. But you are drawing hard lines between evolution of the body and evolution of the mind which do not exist.

How I see it, is that evolution builds up on itself. It becomes more complex, and happens faster as it goes. So we had biological evolution but that developed a species that could use technology and with technology we have been moving to a more complex nature at highly increased speeds.

My main point is that biological evolution is slow, inefficient and and outside our control unless we did some very questionable things morally(such as breeding humans as if they were animals).

Technological evolution is fully within our control, extremely fast and efficient. Saying we should ignore technology and allow people to die because biological evolution hasn't caught up to technology in the area of health is silly.

Originally Posted by Alric

My main point is that biological evolution is slow, inefficient and and outside our control unless we did some very questionable things morally(such as breeding humans as if they were animals).

yeah its slow, but inefficient no. just because we have been the first species to figure out technology, doesn't mean anything really. All it would take is one human to be born evolved, it would be smarter then us, and we wouldn't be at the top anymore, and this creature, would be smarter then us, that would mean it would see how we were and hide and breed and not show to any human that it was better, or even existed because it would know that we would kill it and suppress it as is our fearful nature. Oh yeah and since it was smarter it would also take our tech, understand it even better, and then build off of it and then our tech would be obsolete compared to this new creatures. all because of one step in biological evolution. because thats the thing about evolution the creatures at the top don't see it coming, and one biological step later, something else has surpassed them.

I think you watched planet of the apes to often. Evolution is really slow, a creature can't just magically go from low level thinking to higher than us just like that. It takes time and so we would see it coming and we have such a huge head start they can't catch us.

Also humans are not the first ones to develop technology. The neanderthals were actually using tools before us, but we developed and overcame them, just like you were describing. The thing is when the humans overtook the neanderthals they were using very primitive technology. If they had the weapons we do today, it probably would of gone very differently.

Originally Posted by mindwanderer

I remember going to sleep when I was a wee kid thinking to myself "This is what it feels like to die."

Of course, that isn't entirely true... but the concept is similar. After death, you perceive nothing (unless you do, in which case I'm going to hell). I would lay in bed, before or after sleep, thinking about this 'til all hours of the night. I remember getting a little sad at the fact that after death I wouldn't hear music, or see family or friends... but then I realized that the worst part of death comes well before it happens (with the possible exception of the pain that may accompany death). The worst part of death can only exist/be perceived during life. That is... the expectation of death. Seeing death coming. After death, there is no worry. You forget your friends, loves, hates, favorite bands etc.

So with that realization as a child, I am not afraid of death. No matter how soon it comes, it doesn't matter to me. Even if I spend my last months in a hospital bed with terminal illness... it won't matter.

What is more reasonable, in my opinion, is fear of the death of others. Last November my Dad died, and I was afraid for my Mother... for how She'd handle it, and how we could help deal with her debt. Being religious, she handled it "well". Dad set everything up so that Mum would be financially secure after his death... so luckily it all "worked out".

And you only know that you were 'dead', once you wake up. That is to say, you can't know what it's like to not exist other than from the contrast of what it's like to exist. ^_^

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

And you only know that you were 'dead', once you wake up. That is to say, you can't know what it's like to not exist other than from the contrast of what it's like to exist. ^_^

Indeed. Well put. That's comforting

Originally Posted by Alric

How I see it, is that evolution builds up on itself. It becomes more complex, and happens faster as it goes. So we had biological evolution but that developed a species that could use technology and with technology we have been moving to a more complex nature at highly increased speeds.

My main point is that biological evolution is slow, inefficient and and outside our control unless we did some very questionable things morally(such as breeding humans as if they were animals).

Technological evolution is fully within our control, extremely fast and efficient. Saying we should ignore technology and allow people to die because biological evolution hasn't caught up to technology in the area of health is silly.

And again we come back around to you regarding biological evolution through a pinhole sized scope. Not only would molecular geneticists disagree with this, but behaviorists as well. Gradualism is antiquated, it's an old theory they still teach in schools for purposes I can't even fathom. A single molecule out of place in a DNA structure can mean the difference between a "normal" human being and a serial killer which may not seem like much related to growing two hearts but it means a world of difference regarding the evolution of technology.

Our attitudes are paramount toward the evolution of technology. The way we perceive the world directly effects what we can technologically access. For instance, in you worldview, because we're able to cure some diseases and replaced bad organs, it's only a little leap forward to immortality. In my worldview, we may increase our lifespans by 20, 30 or even 60 years but we cannot stop the aging process. Some people theorize that we could and I regard these people the same way you probably regard paranormal researchers... fringe science. But I can only admit sometimes fringe science has changed the shape of our perception. Without fringe science there would be no mutation, which is another word for transformation, which is another word for what you so negatively color destruction.

And that alone reveals how your negatively coloring of destruction is illusory. Without the destruction of ideas such as creationism or flat earth, we would not have such a profoundly more advantageous understanding of reality. Ideas are in competition, just as biological life-forms. And ideas are also temporary paradigms, just as organisms. And furthermore, it's easier for our changing perception of reality to propagate if we have fresh minds to work with. Previous generations have been shown to be far less likely to accept new concepts than the new generation. I mean for fuck's sake that's what the whole book, "No Country for Old Men" is about, the world changes too fast for old people to catch up because they spent their entire development cycle learning how to deal with a different reality.

See that is exactly what I mean by your ideas being very destructive. You are basically saying that people need to die for ideas to change. Why is there so much aggression? Why not just teach people new ideas? Killing everyone to changes ideas is an extreme concept. Waiting for everyone to die off it only slightly less extreme. Teaching people to change ideas seems far more reasonable.

No offense but it sounds like a lot of your opinions are based on negative stereotypes of older people, and you seem to have a large bias against them. Otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to say older people need to die off so younger ones can come in. You have not yet shown any benefit to killing off old people, nor shown how they are unable to learn new concepts.

To be honest, there is no evidence of such things at all. It is a negative stereotype that old people can't learn new things. Old people work in sciences and research and development, and go to school for advance degrees, and retraining. The average person goes through 7 careers in their life time. Not jobs, careers. People are extremely adaptable and there is no reason to believe that they are incapable of changing, because it simply isn't true.

We are actually making great progress in life extension research. We can now like triple the life span of some animals. We know a lot about what is causing aging and if we can correct those things aging will stop. Aging isn't a magical thing that can not be stopped. It is a disease that can be cured like anything else. I never said it would happen tomorrow, but we are getting closer. I don't see how you can just ignore all the science and say it will never happen, simply because you don't agree with it.

Could you please stop with the strawmen? I don't hate old people I'm simply trying to teach you how evolution works because you have a very obvious misunderstanding of it. Today, people go through 7 careers in their lifetime. 50 years ago, the average was like 1.3 careers. Times change. People change. And as I have been explaining to you... over and over again... the change is not just cultural. It's biological.

Also I suggest you watch the film "The Fountain"

I don't think you hate old people at all, I think you are just biased against them. There is an important difference between the two. You seem to strongly feel that people are unable to change, but that isn't true at all. Also people having more careers in a life time is most definitely a cultural change and not a biological one.

I think you are the one with the misunderstanding of evolution, since you keep overstating how quickly changes can take place. One individual having a change, hardly means the entire species is going to change as well. Like I said many times before, since there is no advantage or disadvantages to most changes within humans, none of them are going to have a major impact, and none of them are likely to spread across the entire population.

Take this class and get back to me

1. Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology - YouTube

It seems we have come to a fundamental disagreement that can't be resolved through discussion. All I can do is direct you to where you might learn more. I believe if you follow this video series from beginning to end, you will come to understand evolution on a deeper level and thus not disregard the importance of biology in evolution the way you have so far.

Also, you still really need to watch "The Fountain."

I never denied that changes in the brain can effect people. I also never denied that changes in genes can effect people or change things in the brain. What I said is that we are developing technology that can A. Repair and fix any bad changes in a person. And B. Duplicate any positive changes in another person. I also said that we will be able to do that far quicker by several orders of magnitude and more efficiently than having any changes spread biologically through having sex.

Didn't you already highlight that trying to manipulate genes could lead us toward disastrous consequences? Allowing human beings to change naturally rather than trying to control our biological evolution will result in slower changes, yes, but it will also result in more advantageous changes. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, the future pioneers of the universe will not be us, but a species very much like us, with more of our strengths and fewer of our weaknesses.

Building a road is less efficient than letting a river form itself. A road, or a straight line, requires ground be shifted. A river simply works around it. It is the path of least resistance, it is also the path headed toward the best possible outcome, for a river's job is to head downhill, whatever that entails. A road implies all sorts of goals and ends up changing everything about the environment to essentially go to a lot of trouble to fail at the task the river is successful at.

In other words, as you would learn if you watched The Fountain, maybe we can figure out how to live forever, but it's just a long and inefficient way to figure out that death is still a necessary journey.

I actually think that is a very good metaphor. Building the road is more difficult, and requires more energy to do. However we have control over where it goes. That to me is the most important thing. Instead of just following biological evolution to wherever it might go, we should take control of our own destinies.

A river takes the path of least resistance and goes downhill, a road however and go to any where we want, even to to the top of the highest mountains. A road is superior because it goes where we want it to go.

I believe the river is superior because it knows exactly where its going, downhill. In this sense, we can't specify exactly what future humanity would look like, but we can predict with confidence that it will have more of our strengths and fewer of our weaknesses. We cannot imagine what this would mean, because the raw potential of nature is capable of defying even our wildest expectations. Meanwhile, with road building, we are limited to designs, to our arrogant posit that we know what is best for ourselves and for the world. We don't. We don't even have an inkling of a clue what is truly best, what is truly superior. We have ideas, sure, but we don't really have any clue which direction is downhill. Metaphorically speaking.

A river moves forward, a road might move any which way, and in the end take detour after detour after detour before it finally realizes... just let the water flow.

Yea and compassion and empathy might be a weakness that is eliminated from the gene pool. Which is why I have no interest in evolution whim of fancy. Humans should be allowed to design their own fates. After all evolution lead us to this time and place and handed us the ability to take our future into our own hands. It would be irresponsible to neglect what we have been given because we are so scared of what we might do with it.

And yay, for he hath eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and now he knew what was best. And so smart he had become, he needn't not listen to the world. And so he removed his ears. And he need not see the world, so he removed his eyes. Wise as he was now, he knew he needed only his mouth, with which to speak to a world he could not listen to. And he needed only his hands, with which to paint a world he could not see.

It's funny, how we evolved into this creature that thinks it knows better than nature what is the right and wrong way to live. And our ancestors, between the Tigris and Euphrates, were the first, as far as I know, that decided we weren't part of nature, we were above it. It was our domain. And this represented the death of shamanism, and the birth of the mandala and the class system. And the birth of totalitarian systems, the birth of extermination, the birth of exploitation... the birth of so much suffering... but it propagated because we generated so much more food than other cultures we could feed our war machines and conquer and transform every landscape we came across into our own. And with it, we came up with these religions that told us anyone who didn't practice it was wrong and needed to be saved from the punishment of being wrong. These religions also fed our war machines, and we all did it. The Mayans and the Aztecs, the Japanese, the Celts long before the Romans ever set foot in Northern Europe. It took over because we knew our way was best. The Natural Way of other societies we encountered deserved as much respect as a child, still unable to walk. Societies which spent so much time listening and so little talking, cultures that got nothing done. We knew our way was best, and our God was the only true God. And we had the food supplies to march our armies into the Leaver culture and prove it to them, either our God was right or they would be dead. What better proof is that?

And now we think we're so technologically advanced... we have stolen fire from the Gods and now we wield our own destinies. And of course we must be right. Sure, those Inquisitors were wrong, because they created suffering. Sure, the propagators of Manifest Destiny were wrong because they created suffering. The Romans were wrong because they created suffering. Well what on Earth have humans done since we mutated into Takers that does not cause suffering? We the makers of modern medicine who could cure disease... we find ourselves dying from our own toxic, stagnant lifestyles. Ever since we decided we knew what was best for the world, it seems we're capable of making only mistakes. Do you believe this lifestyle is permanent? The beginning of a transhuman superculture? We've been here before. It is a temporary ailment, like a bacterial infestation.

I believe you're right, we do wield our own destinies now. And the best decision we could make is to give that up and go back to the forest. Perhaps keep some of our technology with us, but leave the TVs and enjoy the sunsets. Leave the straight lines and the rectangles and enjoy the wiggly, transformative nature of reality.

Of course we know better than nature. Nature isn't a thinking entity. Nature is totally incapable of any thought what so ever. Don't give nature anthropomorphic traits, or act like its some kind of god or higher power, it isn't.

The life we have now, sitting around chatting on the internet, studying the laws of physics, flying into space, drinking ice cold beverages, sitting in air conditioned, clean sanitized homes, that is a nice life. Living in the jungle, half staved, fighting animals to the death in the freezing cold winters and sweltering heat of the summers, dying of horrible flesh rotting diseases, never knowing your family because mothers die half the time in child birth, that life sucks.

There isn't any comparison. It isn't even close. There isn't anything stopping you from going out into the jungle and living there if you wanted, but you don't. Of course you don't, you got more common sense than to do that.

Do we got problems? Yes, of course we do. Are things bad in some parts of the world? Yes, very much so, we are lucky in this country. Are we better off now than before we had technology? Hell yes we are, there is no doubt about it. With all the problems and issues we are facing today, we are thousands of times better off now than we were before.

I am a writer, so I use literary tools such as metaphor and personification to describe my opinion. This does not mean I am anthropomorphizing anything. But truly, what is the difference between a Human Being and Nature? List the qualities, and not the arbitrary ones like Skin. They are both complex systems of some sort, right? They both encompass many other systems within them. What makes them different?

(I'll address the rest of your points later but I'd like to avoid red herring)

Homo sapiens are a species of mammal that are very intelligent with high reasoning abilities, capable of using tools and have shown amazing ability to communicate. Nature is the physical world, some times specifically used in reference to things not artificially constructed by humans.

A human being is a specific animal with a brain, and so it can think. Nature doesn't refer to any specific thing and has no brain and is unable to think. Humans are a living organism. Parts of nature might be living, though nature itself isn't a living organism and many parts of it are not alive.

Humans are a complex system, nature however is not. Nature has complex systems within it, but itself is not a complex system. Nature is more a concept, not a specific thing like I said before.

Originally Posted by Alric

Living in the jungle, half staved, fighting animals to the death in the freezing cold winters and sweltering heat of the summers, dying of horrible flesh rotting diseases, never knowing your family because mothers die half the time in child birth, that life sucks.

Where on earth do you get that depiction from?

Originally Posted by Alric

Homo sapiens are a species of mammal that are very intelligent with high reasoning abilities, capable of using tools and have shown amazing ability to communicate. Nature is the physical world, some times specifically used in reference to things not artificially constructed by humans.

A human being is a specific animal with a brain, and so it can think. Nature doesn't refer to any specific thing and has no brain and is unable to think. Humans are a living organism. Parts of nature might be living, though nature itself isn't a living organism and many parts of it are not alive.

Humans are a complex system, nature however is not. Nature has complex systems within it, but itself is not a complex system. Nature is more a concept, not a specific thing like I said before.

How is nature not a system of its own? The very word ecosystem contains the word system within it.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

How is nature not a system of its own? The very word ecosystem contains the word system within it.

Perhaps he is referring to nature's simplicity as a concept. In the sense that "nature" is a 'thing' or place defined by a lack of any human influence. That's relatively simple I supposed.

On that note, It's funny how us humans (generally) think. We think of ourselves as different, as disconnected from the natural order. So much so that we refuse to accept that any influence we have on earth is natural. We are animals like anything else, and we got to where we are via natural means (evolution). Anything we do, mechanical or technological, is natural. We were building huts hundreds and thousands of years ago... and people consider that "natural". Then we learn how to use and mix clays and cements... and suddenly it isn't. I dunno... I just find it silly.