Some potentially disturbing questions

[Guest Jlall]

**Disclaimer, just curious about this as it relates to an argument I had with a friend recently, don't read anything into this please**

 

Not to be morbid but I have a few questions.

 

1) Would you want to live forever if you could stop the effects of aging at whatever your ideal age is? If not why not, and what would determine when you would want to die?

 

2) Most would agree that they would want to die if they had some horrifyingly painful terminal disease for instance. What if the disease was not terminal but you were in constant pain? If you would at any point want to die if you had a non terminal disease this would imply that if your quality of life sunk below some level you would want to die. What level would this have to be on a scale of a cold to horrifying everlasting pain?

 

3) If there were no other considerations (ie, friends and family being sad if you died) would this change your answers to 1 or 2?

 

4) Would you ever be willing to accept it could be rational for someone to kill themselves if their line in question #2 was lower than yours? What if it was much lower? Is this line a personal decision?

[mike777]

lets assume a baby has been born today that will live for thousands and thousands of years.

 

Lets assume that by say 2080 or 3000 we can advance life at 10 years at at pace.

 

 

In other words.......those alive at 3000 have ten years to live productive lives but we discover more medicine to survive until 3020...etc..etc..etc.....??????? every ten years?

 

 

Please note this assumes machines and human bio...combining??????

 

 

 

Basically the answer Justin is yes...enough will choose to live for thousands of years with machine parts.

 

Please note how many choose to live and not die today with machine....artificial parts.......I rest my case

 

A more important question will be what does human mean?

[kenrexford]

I suppose my own answer to this can be summarized from a discussion I had with a friend of mine almost twenty years ago. I'd give the same answer today to his line of questions.

 

My friend was and is very religious, with very strong views on heaven and hell and the like. I, on the other hand, am a very pissed of atheist, if this is the right word. I do not believe that there is a god, but I'm pissed off because I would prefer that there was. If that makes any sense.

 

My friend wanted to know why I had left the church and why I did not accept Jesus into my life and all that. His argument at one point was that, if I'm right, it did not matter, but that if he was right, it would, so go with his idea. Makes some sense, I suppose. (I'm getting there...)

 

Anyway, he asked me what I would think if I died and then "woke up" in Hell. My answer was that I would be elated, because my awareness of a world I love and of people I love would turn out to not have been forever lost to time.

 

So, I understand the personal decision of the suffering individual to die. I have had very close family members make that decision. However, I personally believe that I would never intentionally sacrifice my awareness of the world that I love or of the people that I love, no matter what the pain, unless I strongly believed that death did not carry such a sacrifice. I have never experienced such pain, however, making my assumptions of myself somewhat meaningless guesses. I also have not for many years believed that death was anything but the end of awareness; back then my answer would be entirely different.

 

BTW, "ideal age" would be somewhat irrelevant.

[mike777]

i note kenrexford did not discuss any of my points.. I rest my case.

[sceptic]

1) Would you want to live forever if you could stop the effects of aging at whatever your ideal age is? If not why not, and what would determine when you would want to die?

 

I would like to have the Option to live forever, but I would like a get out clause. I think boredom and loneliness would be the deciding factors in the get out clause.

 

My ideal age would be 22-25 anywhere within this band is accepatable to me, I think it is when you are at your prime

 

2) Most would agree that they would want to die if they had some horrifyingly painful terminal disease for instance. What if the disease was not terminal but you were in constant pain? If you would at any point want to die if you had a non terminal disease this would imply that if your quality of life sunk below some level you would want to die. What level would this have to be on a scale of a cold to horrifying everlasting pain?

 

Unfortunately, suicide (mental illness) is in this and to be honest, I doubt I or anyone else really understands why someone that probably has loving parents and family can sink so low as to want to take thier own life, I have sunk low at times in my life but never been suicidal, I thought about just packing my bags and going away and never coming back, but that does not really solve your problems, how low is low, I cant answer this, I find it difficult to comprehend

 

 

3) If there were no other considerations (ie, friends and family being sad if you died) would this change your answers to 1 or 2?

 

as for 1, it would not make a difference, if I were imortal, no one would be sad when I died as that is a contradicion of what I said

 

as for 2 answer stays the same

 

4) Would you ever be willing to accept it could be rational for someone to kill themselves if their line in question #2 was lower than yours? What if it was much lower? Is this line a personal decision?

 

I could understand someone killing them selves, Euthenasia is something I would support the rest of the question, I don't know how to answer

[helene_t]

I sometimes feel horrified of dying and would very much like to be able to live "forever" (which means a couple of billion years, until the radiation of the Sun changes too much to sustain life as we know it).

 

I can barely imagine a disease bad enough to want me to die. I'm quite good at escaping from physical pain by concentrating on non-physical things.

 

I think my cats would have severe problems finding a new house if I died. They both suffer from cronic bladder infection, and one of them is pretty neurotic too. Which is why they were abandoned in the first place. This is another good reason for me not to die within the next few years.

 

Of course this is all very personal, I don't think it's anyones business to moralize about how other people answer these questions.

 

I don't think there's anything rational or irational about whatever answers one gives to these questions. Maybe it could be argued that the Justin that lives today is the same entity as the Justin that lives tomorrow only in the sense that the tomorrow-Justin has memories about the life of the today-Justin. Seeing that way, the only things that is lost if Justin dies today (you may think of him being replaced by some baby that happens to be born tomorrow) is Justin's memories, not his sentience. Seeing it that way makes death a lot less worrisome. And in due course, inovations in biotronics will solve the memory problem as well, making "death" an obsolete concept.

[Gerben42]

1) Would you want to live forever if you could stop the effects of aging at whatever your ideal age is? If not why not, and what would determine when you would want to die?

 

Ah the age old question. I think forever is quite a long time indeed, but so much to explore, so much to do... However you will see everyone you love age and die.

But in the end I think there is so much to do, to explore, to learn...

 

The pluses likely weigh up to the minuses as I am not to kind of person to mourn about the death of loved ones like my grandparents but instead accept the natural process. This is a personal choice, I know.

 

2) Most would agree that they would want to die if they had some horrifyingly painful terminal disease for instance. What if the disease was not terminal but you were in constant pain? If you would at any point want to die if you had a non terminal disease this would imply that if your quality of life sunk below some level you would want to die. What level would this have to be on a scale of a cold to horrifying everlasting pain?

 

Quite close to horrifying everlasting pain indeed. Besides in combination with #1 I cannot think that there will be no medical solution for the problem at some point.

 

3) If there were no other considerations (ie, friends and family being sad if you died) would this change your answers to 1 or 2?

 

I hope that if I take the decision in #2 that my friends will think it was better this way.

 

4) Would you ever be willing to accept it could be rational for someone to kill themselves if their line in question #2 was lower than yours? What if it was much lower? Is this line a personal decision?

 

Yes, if their desire is really deep and not talked into by someone else (for example a religious leader). My grandmother used to work in a hospital for the mentally ill and there were some suicidal patients there. She said if people really really want to die, they will find a way.

 

Personally, I think a person has the right to die just as he has the right to live.

 

A more important question will be what does human mean?

 

This is the one about the ship. Let's say we have a great ship, say the QE2, and it needs repairing. One third of the ship is replaced with new stuff. People will agree it is still the QE2.

 

Then after a few years, another third is replaced. I think we can still say that the ship is still the QE2. Then after even more years, the remaining old stuff is replaced with new things. Yet, we still call the ship the QE2.

 

Let's suppose we gather all the old stuff and build the whole ship from that. Now what's that?

 

So I cannot answer what does it mean to be human...

[helene_t]

A more important question will be what does human mean?

I disagree. To me, that's an utterly boring question. You can define the word "human" whichever way you please. Sematics, seschmantics. Just like other boring discussions about the meaning of "terrorism", "war", "objective moral" etc etc etc. Yawn.

 

But fortunately, interests are there to differ, just like tastes. I suppose some would say what I spent my life doing is utterly boring.

 

Incidently, I do find Justin's questions interesting. Whether they are important, I'm less sure.

[sceptic]

What does it mean to be a broom ?

 

after 6 new handles and 8 new heads it is still a broom, maybe Triggers philosophy relates the same as being human

[Fluffy]

I will be happy to stay here untill god asks me to give up.

[hrothgar]

Hi Justin

 

This isn't (quite) the question that you asked, however, I think that it still might be appropriate.

 

I think that we are rapidly hitting a point in time at which death is going to become a lifestyle choice. I suspect that the children of the today mega millionaires - for example, Bill Gates' children - might be the first people who won't need to grow old and die. I expect that the medical advances over the next 20 - 30 years will be sufficient that they will be able to hold off many of the ill effects of aging for as long as they want. Personally, I don't think said benefits will trickle down in time for folks like me to benefit. In part, this will be an issue related to cost and the rate of technological diffusion. However, even if the technology became available I suspect that social pressures would prevent widespread adoption. Simple put: The planet can't support large number of immortals. (Imagine the population pressures that this would create). However, if and when this type of technology does become available I suspect that societal norms about suicide are going to chance dramatically.

 

Personally, I don't think that I would want to live forever. I'm only 40, however, a certain amount of ennui has already set in. Who knows: If I could have the same body (and hormones) that I had when I was 21 I might feel differently.

 

(For what its worth, I don't see anything wrong with suicide)

[pbleighton]

1) Would you want to live forever if you could stop the effects of aging at whatever your ideal age is? If not why not, and what would determine when you would want to die?

 

No, I wouldn't want to live forever. I would get bored eventually.

 

2) Most would agree that they would want to die if they had some horrifyingly painful terminal disease for instance. What if the disease was not terminal but you were in constant pain? If you would at any point want to die if you had a non terminal disease this would imply that if your quality of life sunk below some level you would want to die. What level would this have to be on a scale of a cold to horrifying everlasting pain?

 

Yes, I would want to die if my quality of life sunk below some level. I have a disease which makes this very likely, and I've given this a lot of thought.

 

3) If there were no other considerations (ie, friends and family being sad if you died) would this change your answers to 1 or 2?

 

No.

 

4) Would you ever be willing to accept it could be rational for someone to kill themselves if their line in question #2 was lower than yours? What if it was much lower? Is this line a personal decision?

 

Absolutely yes, I've given it a lot of thought for myself.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

(For what its worth, I don't see anything wrong with suicide)

Well, that's the whole trick isn't it? I don't want to die of natural causes, when I can end my own life any time I want. The real choice isn't to live forever, it's to live until we end our own lives.

 

As far as the question, I don't know...there's a prisoner's dilemma here. If we all decide to live forever, there will either be starvation or no children. I would be willing to put an upper limit on age if in return it meant that humanity would continue to exist. Otherwise, no, I see no reason to limit myself.

[Al_U_Card]

1) Would you want to live forever if you could stop the effects of aging at whatever your ideal age is? If not why not, and what would determine when you would want to die?

 

2) Most would agree that they would want to die if they had some horrifyingly painful terminal disease for instance. What if the disease was not terminal but you were in constant pain? If you would at any point want to die if you had a non terminal disease this would imply that if your quality of life sunk below some level you would want to die. What level would this have to be on a scale of a cold to horrifying everlasting pain?

 

3) If there were no other considerations (ie, friends and family being sad if you died) would this change your answers to 1 or 2?

 

4) Would you ever be willing to accept it could be rational for someone to kill themselves if their line in question #2 was lower than yours? What if it was much lower? Is this line a personal decision?

Interesting.....

 

1-No. I expect to be able to graduate from this school (of life) at the point where I have understood all those things that I have to deal with.

 

2-Suicide denies you the right to experience the life that you were given. No pain would deny me that right.

 

3-No

 

4-You arrived here with a plan so you just have to be the man.

[Fluffy]

I try not to think too much on this questions because my mother died in december after a month were we all knew she was going to die in pain (she did)

 

writing the above sentece was enough to make me sad *****.

 

nevermind what I wanted to say is:

-if you live forever THEN you'll be famous

-if you are famous THEN there is a chance someone wants to kill you

-a small chance over an infinite time is a 100% succes

-so you can't live forever.

 

 

Now knowing I cannot live forever, then I would be happy to live for as long as I can.

[bid_em_up]

If you haven't already done so, read "Time Enough For Love" by Robert Heinlein.

[pclayton]

**Disclaimer, just curious about this as it relates to an argument I had with a friend recently, don't read anything into this please**

 

Not to be morbid but I have a few questions.

 

1) Would you want to live forever if you could stop the effects of aging at whatever your ideal age is? If not why not, and what would determine when you would want to die?

 

2) Most would agree that they would want to die if they had some horrifyingly painful terminal disease for instance. What if the disease was not terminal but you were in constant pain? If you would at any point want to die if you had a non terminal disease this would imply that if your quality of life sunk below some level you would want to die. What level would this have to be on a scale of a cold to horrifying everlasting pain?

 

3) If there were no other considerations (ie, friends and family being sad if you died) would this change your answers to 1 or 2?

 

4) Would you ever be willing to accept it could be rational for someone to kill themselves if their line in question #2 was lower than yours? What if it was much lower? Is this line a personal decision?

1. Put the "God" question aside for a second. If you believe in some form of an afterlife, or reincarnation, you believe that the soul is eternal, even though life as we know it ends at some point. By the way, I love my life, and if there was a way I could completely stop the effects of aging, I'd want to live eternally here.

 

2. Pain control is much more advanced now, than say, 20 years ago. Suicide is the ultimate personal decision, but it takes such a toll on others. I'd be surprised if most people haven't casually thought about the idea of offing themselves at one time or another in their lives. The level or pain or misery would have to be pretty dire for me, and in my own mind I'd want to explore every possible option for dealing with it before scrapped my life.

 

3. Yes, probably, but this feeds on itself. If you don't have a support structure around, you are more apt to consider extreme measures like suicide.

 

4. Suicide is never 'rational' by definition (I'm putting this in a Maslow context). However, it is a personal choice, and if you believe in personal freedom, then you have to believe in someone's right to take their own life. That being said, I think life is a beautiful thing, and its a horrible thing when suicide happens.

[pbleighton]

"Suicide is never 'rational' by definition (I'm putting this in a Maslow context)"

 

This is entirely dependent on which definition you choose.

 

There are many people who think it's rational under certain circumstances, and many others who disagree.

 

Peter

[Guest Jlall]

4. Suicide is never 'rational' by definition

I would consider someone who was suffering horribly with a terminal disease and did not opt to kill themselves irrational.

 

edit: I'm now reminded of David Stove, an arch-rationalist if one ever existed, who hanged himself in a similar situation.

[Gerben42]

As far as the question, I don't know...there's a prisoner's dilemma here. If we all decide to live forever, there will either be starvation or no children. I would be willing to put an upper limit on age if in return it meant that humanity would continue to exist. Otherwise, no, I see no reason to limit myself.

 

This is quite a horrible suggestion. Consider that if the government to reduce cost on healthcare decided to "get rid" of everyone over the age of 80. Don't worry, humanity will take more to eradicate than living forever (isn't that a contradiction?)

[DrTodd13]

Consciousness transfer to a human-like robotic body and brain may be down the road but in the interim, we will soon (soon being relative, 50 or 100 years...not necessarily too close) have the capability to produce nanobots that can go in and repair all damage due to time from the body. Lifespans of 1000s of years or indefinite may be possible. If such technology is indeed possible, I doubt God will allow humans to possess it. I can't constrain God but He did at one point reduce human lifespan to around 120 years for a reason and I don't see that reason as having changed. Another version talks about how each man is appointed once to die and so while very long lifespans might be allowed, indefinite postponement of death might not be.

 

For the person that said he once was a Christian but was now an atheist. I hope that you realize that being an atheist requires as much faith as being a deist or theist. In the continuum of likelihood of God's existence, both extremes require faith. In many cases it is impossible to prove a negative and this is one such case. You can't prove that God doesn't exist so you can be rational and say that the probability is low that he exists but to conclude to a certainty that He doesn't exist is not a scientific rational conclusion, it is an irrational faith/belief. And yes, I am agnostic about flying purple dinosaurs as well. I think the odds that they exist on earth or elsewhere are very low but I can't make the statement that they don't exist.

[pbleighton]

"And yes, I am agnostic about flying purple dinosaurs as well. I think the odds that they exist on earth or elsewhere are very low but I can't make the statement that they don't exist."

 

This wasn't addressed to me, but...

 

Because of this argument, I classified myself as an agnostic for decades. About ten years back, I decided that the practical, "flying purple dinosaur" definition of atheist (and my estimation of the probabilities are equal) fit me better than the theoretically correct agnostic tag.

 

If you would like to call me an agnostic, be my guest.

 

However, there are lots of people out there who call themselves believers who have a lot more doubt of God's existence than I have of his nonexistence. I have no quarrel with their terminology.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

If such technology is indeed possible, I doubt God will allow humans to possess it.  I can't constrain God but He did at one point reduce human lifespan to around 120 years for a reason and I don't see that reason as having changed.

OMG...

 

Are you actually a Biblical literalist? Do you believe that Methuselah lived 969 years? (It sounds like you're taking Genesis 6:3 as factual)

 

What about young earth creationism?

[mike777]

A more important question will be what does human mean?

I disagree. To me, that's an utterly boring question. You can define the word "human" whichever way you please. Sematics, seschmantics. Just like other boring discussions about the meaning of "terrorism", "war", "objective moral" etc etc etc. Yawn.

 

But fortunately, interests are there to differ, just like tastes. I suppose some would say what I spent my life doing is utterly boring.

 

Incidently, I do find Justin's questions interesting. Whether they are important, I'm less sure.

Helene, the question of what is human maybe boring to you but obviously it is not to many people even today. Just look at the heated abortion discussion and debate.

 

 

Now add nanobots, bio/robots, AI and chips in the brain to the discussion for babies born today or next year and I think this will become quite the discussion in the near future for these children. Boring, well not to me. :)

 

As for the discussion of extending life to thousands of years, maybe. It would not surprise me that some babies born today may live that long. As I mentioned before extending their productive lives ten years at a time.

 

But as discussed in another post perhaps imbuing the universe/space/time/whatever with a consciousness will become possible.

[jtfanclub]

This is quite a horrible suggestion. Consider that if the government to reduce cost on healthcare decided to "get rid" of everyone over the age of 80. Don't worry, humanity will take more to eradicate than living forever (isn't that a contradiction?)

No. Imagine if women could live forever now, but only remained fertile until their 50s. Very soon, we would either have no children or overpopulation. If we choose overpopulation, we'll eventually all starve to death. If we choose no children, then as people died off (due to war, suicide, or other non-natural deaths) there would be nobody to replace them. This is very common in nature, when you remove a species' natural predator.

 

In effect, cancer is our predator. Killing off our predator may have some very non-intuitive effects, including quite possibly killing us off.