> I can understand the concept of ceasing to exist. I have not had anyone be able to explain to me why that makes that person so afraid, other than the fact that it just does.
Hard to explain (surprising to even have to explain), but it seems worth a shot. Consider a degenerative mental disease like Alzheimer's; does the idea of suffering from that, or someone in your family suffering from that, bother you? Why? If the disease robbed you/them of all sense of self, including any part of you/them that would be bothered by it, does that mean there's no harm done because you/they are no longer aware of it? Assuming you find that concept as horrific as I do, then a more permanent loss of any "sense of self" should be quite analogous.
Both are horrifying atrocities. Both need to stop. And I don't understand how the latter can seem any less horrific than the former. Yet far more attention is paid to the former, while a hundred and fifty thousand people die every day.
> You're talking about interacting with other people in happiness for eternity. I specifically said "forever on this earth", not "forever, period". I don't think you can achieve what you're talking about on this earth. We've had centuries of modern civilization to figure out how to stop both large-scale wars and petty relationship spats, and it's debatable whether we'll reach a level that has no pain. Yes, we've gotten better, especially if you read some of the literature on the topic, but age-old problems remain and I find no reason to think that they'll one day disappear.
Fixing mortality is one of many things that needs to happen. Given all the time in the world, I'm quite confident we can fix the various lesser problems (and next to mortality, everything is a lesser problem). Fixing scarcity would go a long way. AI (or something very much like it) seems like the surest path, though it requires a great deal of care to get right.
And I don't see why we should be limited to "this earth", or "this universe" if it turns out there are others. Forever is a very long time.
I have hope. And more importantly, I'm working towards those goals.
> I actually deal with my worries about this issue in a comment below. I think people go about this subject very selfishly without thinking of the greater consequences.
If you're referring to your comment about economic disparity making longevity a privilege: probably, but not for long. It's too important not to make universally available. And to be explicitly clear: I don't think anyone should die; I'm not just worried about myself or those I care about (though I'd be lying if I said I didn't care about them more). But I think it's entirely possible to build a world in which nobody dies.
That itself may lead to problems, but they'll be problems worth having and worth solving, and we'll have plenty of time to solve them.
Hard to explain (surprising to even have to explain), but it seems worth a shot. Consider a degenerative mental disease like Alzheimer's; does the idea of suffering from that, or someone in your family suffering from that, bother you? Why? If the disease robbed you/them of all sense of self, including any part of you/them that would be bothered by it, does that mean there's no harm done because you/they are no longer aware of it? Assuming you find that concept as horrific as I do, then a more permanent loss of any "sense of self" should be quite analogous.
I like that you're actually trying to answer my question instead of being dismissive about it. Unfortunately, I'd say it's difficult to compare Alzheimer's with cessation of existence in this manner. One is the process of losing your sense of self. I agree that must be extremely frightening. Losing control of yourself is no doubt hard.
However, in discussing death, I am referring to the result, not the process. The process of suffering leading to death can horrific, especially if disease is the cause. The end result of not existing, I am not able to put in the same sentence like you do. Even after carefully reading your explanation, it seems to me that you've done a masterful job explaining why the process is horrifying. But I already agree with that. You haven't been able to explain to me why the result after the process is over is so scary.
It may be possible we'd just end up going in circles about this, which would be too bad. I am seriously waiting for someone to explain to me in a manner that I can understand why cessation of existence is so terrifying to them.
edit addendum: Questions regarding scarcity and whether it can be resolved even with new technology and expansion to other galaxies unfortunately cannot be easily resolved until it happens. That being said, I have little faith that humanity can have that Star Trek epiphany. We have enough food to end world hunger today. The problem is distribution and individuals willing to sacrifice for the greater good. This is true for both third world nations that experience famine and inner city slums in the first world. The political will simply isn't there. Don't get me wrong, I really do wish I could think better of humanity.
> I like that you're actually trying to answer my question instead of being dismissive about it.
And I appreciate that you're attempting to understand another point of view. Thank you.
> One is the process of losing your sense of self. I agree that must be extremely frightening. Losing control of yourself is no doubt hard.
There's a difference here between what I'm talking about and what you're talking about, and it's a critically important one: there's a big difference between "losing control of yourself" and "losing yourself". I mentioned degenerative mental disorders specifically because that's a case where you're not still "in there" somewhere. I'm talking about the case where there's no "you" left. You are your mind; if your mind is gone, there's no "you" anymore.
The distinction is important for people who would equate that entirely with death. You thought I was talking about the process, but I'm very much talking about the end result.
It would be as if you'd said "well, the part of a degenerative mental disease where you're forgetting everything you are is horrible, but once you're done forgetting everything you are, and forgetting that there was even something to forget, what's wrong with that?".
> However, in discussing death, I am referring to the result, not the process.
So am I. The process varies depending on how you die. The result is always the same: no more you. The suffering is nothing compared to the non-existence at the end; suffering can be lived through and gotten past, but death cannot. (This point of view is rather diametrically opposed to the one that views death as a potential "end to suffering".)
> You haven't been able to explain to me why the result after the process is over is so scary.
Fear isn't a required component, though it's certainly a healthy reaction (same as if something large and hungry is running at you: danger, thing to avoid, fight against it or flee from it). The key point is that it's a horrible atrocity for anyone to die. One less mind in the world; one less light in the darkness; one less set of unique experiences; one sentient being annihilated forever.
For what it's worth, part of the reason I find this question hard to answer is not because I find it complicated, but because I find it very simple; it's as if you asked "why is 1 > 0?". To which the answer is "because that's how we define 1 and 0". Why is life better than death? Because life is, and death isn't. But if you found that answer convincing, you'd already be convinced; there's a difference in fundamental value systems here.
> Questions regarding scarcity and whether it can be resolved even with new technology and expansion to other galaxies unfortunately cannot be easily resolved until it happens. That being said, I have little faith that humanity can have that Star Trek epiphany.
I very much doubt the future will look like Star Trek; I think we can do much better, though fiction certainly provides some useful inspiration. How soon we can get there is another question entirely.
I want to make this world better, because 1) wanting to do so is a required first step to make it happen, and 2) if you start from the premise that it's the only one we've got, then we have to make the most of it. I personally feel that mortality and death is the biggest evil in the world, and the one worth spending the most effort to fight first, but it certainly isn't the last one, and when we're done with it we shouldn't hang up our tools and rest.
For a bit of writing I find particularly inspiring on this topic, see http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html ; it's a transparent allegory, but one I find quite compelling.
> I really do wish I could think better of humanity.
You're part of humanity. What are you, personally, doing to solve the problem? Blaming "political will" is one thing, but large-scale apathy is at least as big a roadblock to solving issues on that scale.
The first step to solving a problem is to decide it needs solving. And deciding that it can't be solved makes it harder to solve.
For what it's worth, part of the reason I find this question hard to answer is not because I find it complicated, but because I find it very simple; it's as if you asked "why is 1 > 0?". To which the answer is "because that's how we define 1 and 0". Why is life better than death? Because life is, and death isn't. But if you found that answer convincing, you'd already be convinced; there's a difference in fundamental value systems here.
You do a very good job of making me see that it's coming down to a difference in axiomatic statements of belief; there's not much deeper to go in splitting the atom. Once we get to that point, I guess there's not much else to say except make your choice and live with it.
You're part of humanity. What are you, personally, doing to solve the problem? Blaming "political will" is one thing, but large-scale apathy is at least as big a roadblock to solving issues on that scale.
The first step to solving a problem is to decide it needs solving. And deciding that it can't be solved makes it harder to solve.
I don't agree that I have this perspective. However, the method I have in solving these problems are very integrated with my faith. I've personally concluded that we live in a broken and fallen world and are incapable of fixing it, but a higher power exists who can fix us. However, I won't try to have that discussion here. Certainly, I do things within my power to make things better. While I'm not a gamechanger like Elon Musk, I personally volunteer however I can in areas of poverty around the world, broken families, etc.
But thank you for the discussion. It was enlightening.
I had hoped that it wouldn't come down to axioms. I'm still curious to hear your response to the question from my previous comment:
It would be as if you'd said "well, the part of a degenerative mental disease where you're forgetting everything you are is horrible, but once you're done forgetting everything you are, and forgetting that there was even something to forget, what's wrong with that?".
That's the part I'm most curious about. I realize that you don't personally believe death is a transition to non-existence, but you also acknowledged that others did feel that way, and you wondered how even given that basis one might feel horrified by that non-existence (rather than the process leading to it). Given that, if the above doesn't explain it, I don't think I understand where you're coming from.
Or are you saying that that now makes sense, and the remaining axiomatic disagreement is about non-existence itself?
> However, the method I have in solving these problems are very integrated with my faith. I've personally concluded that we live in a broken and fallen world and are incapable of fixing it, but a higher power exists who can fix us. However, I won't try to have that discussion here.
Neither will I, and I appreciate you separating the discussion from that. However, I would ask that you consider the possibility of the two not being incompatible: believing in an afterlife is not incompatible with trying to make this life as good as possible, and even if you believe it can't be made perfect, that doesn't stop it from getting asymptotically better. The phrase "pray to God but keep rowing to shore" comes to mind, as well as "God helps those who help themselves". I'm not bothered when others have faith; it does bother me, though, when faith in a higher power causes people to give up on humanity. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
In any case, I do very much appreciate the opportunity for a discussion with someone who, despite having a very different point of view, was willing to discuss things in reasonable terms and make an effort to understand a differing point of view.
Or are you saying that that now makes sense, and the remaining axiomatic disagreement is about non-existence itself?
I'm sorry to say that I have no idea what you're talking about up to this point. But it doesn't seem to matter, as I think we agree that the axiomatic disagreement is about whether non-existence itself is something to fear (at least, I think we agree on what we're disagreeing about).
However, I would ask that you consider the possibility of the two not being incompatible: believing in an afterlife is not incompatible with trying to make this life as good as possible, and even if you believe it can't be made perfect, that doesn't stop it from getting asymptotically better. .... I'm not bothered when others have faith; it does bother me, though, when faith in a higher power causes people to give up on humanity. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I think you're misunderstanding me still on where I stand on this. I think it's my responsibility to do what I can to improve things here where I am, both in my community and on my entire planet. Admittedly, that's also integrated with my faith, and it's certainly not an ideal I wish to discard (which in turn makes the idea that my faith makes me wish to discard that ideal all the more ludicrous).
Let me be clear. I have given up on humanity's ability to fix itself. I have not given up on a higher power's ability to change individual humans into people who can make this world a better place. And that includes everything from being more charitable, empathetic, and forgiving every day to having motive and drive to throw away personal riches and futures for a lifetime of thankless service in the trenches of fighting poverty, corruption, unjust war, and more. Not all of us can be Bill Gates and set up a foundation that can really make a difference. But I do believe that everything starts in the hearts of individual people. Unfortunately many people are too petty, selfish, or jaded to care, despite the rare amazing stories of real selflessness. The higher power I believe gives me back hope for people to change.
[This is probably getting a bit deep in the thread for HN; happy to continue via private mail. See my profile.]
> I think we agree that the axiomatic disagreement is about whether non-existence itself is something to fear (at least, I think we agree on what we're disagreeing about).
While that's something we disagree on, I don't think that's the root of the axiomatic difference; that's why I'm curious. Earlier in the thread, you said:
> I can understand the concept of ceasing to exist. I have not had anyone be able to explain to me why that makes that person so afraid, other than the fact that it just does.
That's one step removed from any underlying difference in values or axioms. Axiomatically, we clearly disagree on whether death equates to non-existence, but your statement above seems to suggest you're interested in understanding where other people are coming from despite that: why, assuming that premise, someone might find such non-existence horrifying. To which I'd provided an answer in the form of an analogy to degenerative mental diseases, and never got a response to that.
That's the part I'm curious about: I don't understand a mindset that can find a degenerative mental disorder horrifying (which I'm assuming you agree with) without finding the end result horrifying as well. I'm genuinely curious to understand that.
> Let me be clear. I have given up on humanity's ability to fix itself. I have not given up on a higher power's ability to change individual humans into people who can make this world a better place. [...]
Sounds like we're talking about similar things but fundamentally disagreeing over attribution, then. Or possibly definition of terms, because I have no idea what you mean by "humanity" if you don't mean "humans", since you're subsequently talking about "individual humans" / "individual people" making the world a better place.
I think we're about at the conclusion anyway because roadblocks in our minds are making us go in circles.
That's the part I'm curious about: I don't understand a mindset that can find a degenerative mental disorder horrifying (which I'm assuming you agree with) without finding the end result horrifying as well. I'm genuinely curious to understand that.
This is a fundamental thing we can't seem to make each other understand in terms of why we differ. The process is horrifying to me, but the result is a conclusion that does not horrify me. The phrase "rest in peace" comes to mind here, which I posit many people are willing to say about those who have passed away, whether or not the speaker believes in an afterlife or higher power. Yet they cannot think this way for themselves. I have no theory for this except that perhaps those people are unable to make peace with their end and/or themselves, which is unfortunately a circular argument. I'm not saying that's the case for you. I'm simply saying I can't come up with a better answer, and nobody's been able to explain it to me except that they're afraid because they're afraid.
So to recap, I am saying yes, the process is horrifying, but the end result (death and actual non-existence, not just senility) is what it is and doesn't have to be horrifying. And I believe you are saying that since the process is horrifying, the end result is also necessarily horrifying. I do not see the If A Then B logical path that necessity necessitates for your statements to become acceptable to me.
But if you believe there's a way to break the circle of our discussion, you of course are welcome to email me also. :)
Hard to explain (surprising to even have to explain), but it seems worth a shot. Consider a degenerative mental disease like Alzheimer's; does the idea of suffering from that, or someone in your family suffering from that, bother you? Why? If the disease robbed you/them of all sense of self, including any part of you/them that would be bothered by it, does that mean there's no harm done because you/they are no longer aware of it? Assuming you find that concept as horrific as I do, then a more permanent loss of any "sense of self" should be quite analogous.
Both are horrifying atrocities. Both need to stop. And I don't understand how the latter can seem any less horrific than the former. Yet far more attention is paid to the former, while a hundred and fifty thousand people die every day.
> You're talking about interacting with other people in happiness for eternity. I specifically said "forever on this earth", not "forever, period". I don't think you can achieve what you're talking about on this earth. We've had centuries of modern civilization to figure out how to stop both large-scale wars and petty relationship spats, and it's debatable whether we'll reach a level that has no pain. Yes, we've gotten better, especially if you read some of the literature on the topic, but age-old problems remain and I find no reason to think that they'll one day disappear.
Fixing mortality is one of many things that needs to happen. Given all the time in the world, I'm quite confident we can fix the various lesser problems (and next to mortality, everything is a lesser problem). Fixing scarcity would go a long way. AI (or something very much like it) seems like the surest path, though it requires a great deal of care to get right.
And I don't see why we should be limited to "this earth", or "this universe" if it turns out there are others. Forever is a very long time.
I have hope. And more importantly, I'm working towards those goals.
> I actually deal with my worries about this issue in a comment below. I think people go about this subject very selfishly without thinking of the greater consequences.
If you're referring to your comment about economic disparity making longevity a privilege: probably, but not for long. It's too important not to make universally available. And to be explicitly clear: I don't think anyone should die; I'm not just worried about myself or those I care about (though I'd be lying if I said I didn't care about them more). But I think it's entirely possible to build a world in which nobody dies.
That itself may lead to problems, but they'll be problems worth having and worth solving, and we'll have plenty of time to solve them.