Codo Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Go(o)d questions... 1. I am a christian, so I live forever and that is fine. Okay, maybe this is not the answer you were looking for.... I would hate to live this life on earth forever. I have a wonderful life and would like to stay a little longer, but forever is much too long and will get boring. I mean forever is not 200 instead of 85 years. Forever is forever. And the thoughts about children are valid arguments against even longlivety too. 2. Luckily I do not know anybody personal who suffers from never ending pain. But what I read about makes my opinion quite clear. There is a borderline where people should be allowed to come to an end. On the other hand: Who is allowed to judge whether a life should end or not? Even if you talk about your own life. Are we allow to decline this gift? If we are allowed, where is the borderline? Am I allow to kill just myself? Or am I allowed to judge for my friends and relatives too? What is a valid reason? Too much pain? Or just the will to end for personal reasons? Thios is a very ugly can of worms. 3. No, because the reasons to life are much bigger then personal relationships. 4. If you are an atheist, who not even believe in ethical standards, you must choose your own fate. But if you believe in at least some ethical standards, you have a standard guideline. Maybe a very simple ethics like the christian view: You are not allow to kill, not even yourself. Maybe some very complicated views, which mix the personal fate with other guidelines. I don´t know, I prefer the easy way and would hope that not more people I know will commit suicide. If they do, I think they made a mistake, but it is not my responsibility to judge about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 The much more likely medium-term scenario is the continued extension of physical life without the corresponding extension of mental faculties. What happens if (when) technology allows us to keep some large percentage of the population alive for 20-30 years after complete senescence? The cost to society if all are kept alive will be staggering. What will the benefits be? Society will face excruciating choices, and will likely do things we consider unthinkable today. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 With all the possible tech advances, I see no reason that we cannot feed everyone today let alone whatever number in the future. Only some version of politics would stop that just as only politics stops it today. As for the no children issue, can artificial wombs be that tough in the future to manufacture? Heck we may see those in my lifetime let alone 100 years from now. :) As for excruciating choices, yes, we are already facing those decisions today in deciding who lives or dies and what is a worthwhile human life to continue living or not today. To what degree can we medicate for pain and suffering or should we. Very excruciating for families today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 With all the possible tech advances, I see no reason that we cannot feed everyone today let alone whatever number in the future. Well, as the lifespan approaches infinity, so would the population. As for the no children issue, can artificial wombs be that tough in the future to manufacture? OK, so in a thousand years, we find that a trillion people don't really fit on this planet. Nobody has children for the next 4000 years, when we find the population winding down from non-natural causes. At that point, we discover that the last egg created by a woman was 3950 years ago. No eggs means no artificial wombs. We can try to clone, but it turns out that the older you are, the more damaged your cells are, and the harder it is to make a successful clone. It might take a hundred thousand years for humanity to wind down, but with no replacement population, it's just a matter of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 I do not accept either proposition, too much too assume. :) To be fair I am the guy who posts all the those posts that ask; what if AI is billions of times more intelligience than all of humanity by 2050 and hundreds of trillions more in a hundred years and what will it mean to be human in the coming years so.......:) If you believe in some form/version of human evolution we may evolve. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 If you are an atheist, who not even believe in ethical standards Ethical standards should be uncoupled from belief. And that atheists do not have ethical standards is nonsense. you must choose your own fate. But if you believe in at least some ethical standards, you have a standard guideline. Maybe a very simple ethics like the christian view: You are not allow to kill, not even yourself. Maybe some very complicated views, which mix the personal fate with other guidelines. I don´t know, I prefer the easy way and would hope that not more people I know will commit suicide. If they do, I think they made a mistake, but it is not my responsibility to judge about them. You may think so and that's okay, as long as you do not try to impose your standards onto others, and yet that is what many religious movements do. Ethics is not a simple question and people should be ENCOURAGED to think about them, not discouraged by telling them that all the answers are already engraved in stone. Of course you PREFER the easy way because it's easy. But reality isn't easy. Ethics isn't easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 "If you are an atheist, who not even believe in ethical standards" This is ignorant and offensive. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Good discussion so far... A followup question... For those who say for whatever reason they wouldn't want to live forever if possible even without deteriorating due to aging (most common reason seemed to be boredom), what if someone told you they were bored with life and ready to die? What if this person was 100 years old? What if they were 50? What if they were a teenager? Would you be willing to accept that this could be possible as it would be for you were your age to approach infinity? Presumably it is personal at what point in life you decide you're too bored to live it or too tired of losing loved ones and are ready to call it quits. BTW, I understand that religious discussion is kind of inevitable with a post like this but hopefully everyone can keep an open mind and not denegrate other beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrTodd13 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 "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 I have a problem with their terminology because in order to effectively communicate, we all have to generally agree on what words mean. People usually don't actively think about what words mean and so word usage can become pretty sloppy. It sounds like these people are substituting "I believe God exists" for the more correct (for them) "I believe there is a high likelihood He exists." The former statement to me precludes any doubt. When people bring up the purple flying dinosaur it is always to try to somehow equate the likelihood of God's existence with that of a purple flying dinosaur. There are a number of well-known scientists and philosophers who were previously avowed atheists or agnostics who have subsequently come to accept deism as a more probable candidate. They have looked at the scientific evidence from a number of fields and have inferred the possible existence of a creator. If these smart guys at the height of their field see enough evidence to believe something transcendental may exist then I think it the atheists go too far in estimating an infinitesimally small probability of the existence of God. If you want to say the number is 5% or 10% and then choose to believe He doesn't exist that is fine with me because a lot of people get to 80 or 90% and then choose to let faith take them the rest of the way. I just have a problem with people exaggerating for the purpose of trying to improve their case. Which reminds me, I watched the Al Gore presentation to the Senate today and in her openings remarks the chairwoman said something to the effect that scientists had unequivocally determined that anthropogenic gases were the cause of the warming and one or two sentences later quoted the IPCC report where they said they have only 90% confidence that this was the case. That sounds like an equivocation to me. All in all, the meeting was a complete waste of time. Inhofe came off as an idiot and Al Gore's a liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Justin I really believe that if you make the huge assumption of life close to infinitity then you must assume that humans have evolved to something that is not by definition modern man(human). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution Look at how fast humans/pre humans have evolved in just a blink of an eye of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 For those who say for whatever reason they wouldn't want to live forever if possible even without deteriorating due to aging (most common reason seemed to be boredom), what if someone told you they were bored with life and ready to die? What if this person was 100 years old? What if they were 50? What if they were a teenager? Would you be willing to accept that this could be possible as it would be for you were your age to approach infinity? Presumably it is personal at what point in life you decide you're too bored to live it or too tired of losing loved ones and are ready to call it quits. You're opening a very complicated can of worms here. For the moment, I want to exclude suicide's that are forced on an individual because of health conditions or some such. I couldn't imagine every having a discussion with someone else about a subject as deeply personal as contemplating suicide. What are you hoping to accomplish from the conversation? Are you trying to guilt trip the individual into being a "better" friend, spending more time with you, or acting as your own personal entertainer? The whole process is remarkable difficult to contemplate. An earlier posting on this list noted (accurately) that any decision to commit suicide has a lot of ramifications on the friends and family left behind. At the same time, I'm not sure that we necessarily have an obligation to go on living our lives in order to make them happy (especially if they aren't providing you with reason enough to live) Difficult question all arround: I will note the following: I do think that age has to factor into this all some how. I think that most people gain a certain amount of emotional maturity over time and setbacks that might seem like a crushing blow to a 15 year old get shrugged off by someone who is 30. I think that i'd feel that a 30 year old claim that they wanted to kill themselves was probably more reasonable than a 15 year olds. I suppose that I'd spend more time/effort trying to convince the 15 year to chaige their mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Yes Suicide does leave victims, hurting and pained victims. It is not a victimless act. :) When is it ethical to cause pain and harm to others? I suppose the answer is sometimes it is ok, but when? My understanding of mainline Christianity is that we do not own our bodies. God does. Therefore we are not ethically free to do what we want with them since we do not own them. My guess is many other religions have a similiar theme. In any event I think we are trying to apply humankind emotions to beings who have evolved to nonhuman status...tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrTodd13 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Go(o)d questions... 1. I am a christian, so I live forever and that is fine. Okay, maybe this is not the answer you were looking for.... I would hate to live this life on earth forever. I have a wonderful life and would like to stay a little longer, but forever is much too long and will get boring. I mean forever is not 200 instead of 85 years. Forever is forever. And the thoughts about children are valid arguments against even longlivety too. 4. If you are an atheist, who not even believe in ethical standards, you must choose your own fate. But if you believe in at least some ethical standards, you have a standard guideline. Maybe a very simple ethics like the christian view: You are not allow to kill, not even yourself. Maybe some very complicated views, which mix the personal fate with other guidelines. I don´t know, I prefer the easy way and would hope that not more people I know will commit suicide. If they do, I think they made a mistake, but it is not my responsibility to judge about them. 1. As a Christian, you will spend eternity on earth. AFAIK, nowhere does the Bible say you'll spend eternity in Heaven. Revelations seems to indicate that we will live on a rejuvenated earth in New Jerusalem. I am easily bored and so I've often wondered how I'll manage to amuse myself for an eternity. I must admit the Buddhist (I think it is Buddhism but maybe Hinduism...can't remember offhand) goal of non-existence is sometimes an enticing one but given I believe in the immortality of the soul then eternity with God is better than the alternative. 4. It is an all too common mistake for Christians to believe the atheists cannot have an ethical standard that they live by. Any ethical system has to overcome a few hurdles (like the is/ought problem) but once that is done you can base ethics on religious grounds or humanist grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 " suppose the answer is sometimes it is ok, but when?" This is an individual decision. That's that. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 I hope causing pain and harm to others is not just an individual decision on the basis of your ethics. :) "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Some English guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 "I hope causing pain and harm to others is not just an individual decision on the basis of your ethics. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Some English guy." Start dreaming, Mike. Evidently my ethics are beyond your comprehension. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dodgy Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 1. Sure, make me 21-ish forever. 2. I have a rather high pain threshold, but if I were to become somehow sufficiently disabled that I were no longer able to be essentially self-sufficient, I'll top myself. I won't drag others into my mess. 3. No. 4. Each to their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 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. Abortion is a down-to-Earth problem. I'm not sure if I'd call it "interesting" but it's certainly important (unless one lives in Europe in which case the debate is mood). What is boring is semantics. Or rather: mixing up semantics and real issues in some kind of ratatouille discussion which nobody knows what is about. Pure semantic discussions (when appreciated as such and not confused with real issues) can be nice intelectual chalenges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 (edited) 4. If you are an atheist, who not even believe in ethical standards, you must choose your own fate. (Edit: I misunderstood what Roland said. The below is not so relevant to this discussion, then) Everybody has some limited influence on their own fate. Fatalists may perceive not to have it, and the slave may have less influence on his own fate than Robinson Cruso has on his, but this has nothing to do with ethical standards, or with atheism for that matter. The word "even" suggests (to me) that atheists are less ethical than religious people. I have no idea why that would be so in general. You may live in a region dominated by religious communities with high ethical standards and atheists with lower standards, but it may be the opposite in other areas. The filosopher Soeren Kirkegaard argued that ethical thinking was something opposed to religious thinking. You may disagree, or you may think that such ivory-tower filosophy is irelevant to practical moral judgement, but Kirkegaard happens to be one of the most-cited scholars on Christian morality. And he was a devote Christian himself. The word "ethics" actually does have meaning, or at least it should have or otherwise it'll better be scrapped from dictionaries. But very often it's used as a kind of buzz-word: if you lack arguments against something, you just call it unethical. By the same token, you might say:"If you're a string theory proponent who desn't even believe in ethical standards ....""If you're a Keynesian who desn't even believe in ethical standards ....""If you're an NFB player who desn't even believe in ethical standards ....""If you're an (insert some belief which you happen not to have yourself) who desn't even believe in ethical standards ...." Edited March 22, 2007 by helene_t Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 For those who say for whatever reason they wouldn't want to live forever if possible even without deteriorating due to aging (most common reason seemed to be boredom), what if someone told you they were bored with life and ready to die? What if this person was 100 years old? What if they were 50? What if they were a teenager? Would you be willing to accept that this could be possible as it would be for you were your age to approach infinity? Presumably it is personal at what point in life you decide you're too bored to live it or too tired of losing loved ones and are ready to call it quits. This is obviously not adressed to me. Anyway, I'll give my 2 Eurocents (which is almost three dolarcents so you'd better listen, lol) There's the fairness issue, that when I'm 90 YO I've had my share of life. Given that the World doesn't have capacity for all future generations to live forever, it's only fair if I give place for someone else. Young people are more dynamic than old people. If a teenager says "I've been bored for several minutes, I'd obviously remain bored for the rest of my life. I'd better jump out of the window" it sounds less credible than a 90-YO saying "I've been bored for several decades, ......" Maybe (but now I'm speculating) there's a Darwinian explanation for the idea that we "ought" to be more selfish when we're young. A 15-YO girl has plenty of reproductory capacity left and it makes sense for her to make the best of that, without priority to the reproductive success of her relatives. A 40-YO woman has some capacity left, but given her stakes in all the potential grandchildren and grandnieces/grandnefews she'd better think of the interests of the clan as a whole and not only of her own survival and reproduction. And for a 70-YO woman with no reproductive capacity left, her own survival only makes (Darwinian) sense as long as she can help young relatives reproducing. When she becomes a burden to the clan she might as well commit suicide. To me, the boredom argument sounds strange. Boredom troubles me less and less the older I get. Besides, as society makes progress there's less and less reason to be borred. How can one be bored when internet is readily available, and flight tickets to many destinations cost less than the hourly income of most people in developed countries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Good discussion so far... A followup question... For those who say for whatever reason they wouldn't want to live forever if possible even without deteriorating due to aging (most common reason seemed to be boredom), what if someone told you they were bored with life and ready to die? I'd do my best to talk them out of it, regardless of age, except under extreme circumstances (everybody starving after a plane crash or suchlike), but if they weren't a minor or I wasn't somehow responsible for them, I wouldn't use force or call the police or something. Same as if a friend told me they were going to use heroin or have an abortion. Their life, their choice, but I would hope I could change their mind. Age doesn't matter, except for minors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 "If you are an atheist, who not even believe in ethical standards" This is ignorant and offensive. Peter My apologisze, obviously my translation did not meet what I wanted to say: I tried to say: If you are an atheist AND if you don´t believe in ethical standards then you have no guidance and must trust in your own fate. I never wanted to say that all atheist have no ethical standards. That would be sheer nonsense and surely ignorant an offensive. I am ignorant and offensive sometimes but this was not at all meant as it was understood. My apologiszes for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 I accept anyone as he is, if he wants to die at 10 since he is young enough to learn and listen I will try to convince him, but I won't put myself on his way to 'freedom' (Even when I am sure that is not the way) For anyone above 30 I'll just leave them alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 "I am ignorant and offensive sometimes but this was not at all meant as it was understood. My apologiszes for that." I accept your apology. I probably overreacted, but I hear and read this kind of thing a lot. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h2osmom Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Interesting discussion here. There are a lot of reasons for mortality. Without it, there wouldn't necessarily be as much reason for pushing oneself; afterall, there is always tomorrow. Also, life wouldn't be as precious as it is. We take for granted what has always been and will always be. These considerations are separate from benefits of new people coming to take our places. Also, it's hard for me to imagine an ideal age. Every age is ideal for what is supposed to happen at that age. Do the people on here who have passed their 20's and 30's not feel that they have gained something that younger people have yet to realize? And if one lived without the effects of aging, I question whether all those gains would be made. I don't see boredom as an issue; we choose whether or not to be bored. But, there are different focuses as we progress through life, and these would change if we lived forever. The whole maslow thing of progressing to self actualization............. As far as how long a person should live, I have spent my adult life working with critically ill children and their families. I have come to believe that although it is sad when a child dies, it's not necessarily wrong. Of course families are devastated, and I think it's worse for them than for the person who loses their life. But every life has what it has, and it's vital and precious as long as it is. I see the advances being made on a daily basis; children who would have died just 10 years ago are thriving today, and that's as it should be. We will always strive to prolong life; that's a testament to how precious it is. But there is no entitlement to a particular lifespan, and no age that is more or less ideal than all the other ones, in my opinion. The knowledge that each part of our lives is finite pushes us to use that part more fully. I know I took this in a different direction than it had been taken previously, hope I addressed the questions asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.