Does the "fact that life will end imbues life with vitality and meaning"

[Matus1976]

Victor Wrote in the “Worthless Individual” Thread:

For others, (as it is for me) it is this very fact, the fact that life will end one day—and this fact alone—that imbues their life with vitality and meaning (“This is not a dress rehearsal!”). After all, what would be the purpose to set objectives and goals if life were something infinite? NEVER-ending! Wow, I believe “life eternal” would zap life of any meaning!

Victor I think that is a sad and ridiculous sentiment. Death does not give life value, it does not make a life have meaning, it is the end of life, the end of existence, the end of the potential of values. Do you seriously embody the notion that all things, to be truly valued, must be taken away from you? Must you be enslaved to value freedom? Must you be tortured to value non-torture? Must Angie be taken from you so you can value truly value Angie? This, of course, is a common sentiment, and many people will say yes to some of these things. First of all, intelligent rational people can emulate these scenerios to enough of a degree to know they prefer them not to occur, I do not literally need to be imprisoned to value freedom. But second, and most importantly, all of these require a continuation of a subjective experience where the situation is compared before and after the thing we value is lost. You get to say “oh, this is what life is like with this” and compare that to “this is what life is like without it” You can NEVER, however, subjectively experience non-existence, you can not say “ah, this is what death is like” (as if it is some quiet dark room you sit in forever) and compare that to existence. You do not exist any longer to make that comparison. You can not “be” better of dead, because you are not any longer, and so can certainly not “be” anything. Similar, death can not make you appreciate life more. Death can not bring value to life, it is the cessation of life, the destruction of all values. No rational being who loves life should ever find value in death.

I think you need to sit down and think about this mentality a little more, this attitude, I believe, comes from the fact that for the last 90,000 years humans had nothing to psychological deal with the cessation of their own existence, so they created every manner of non-sense to obfuscate the true horror of death. They invented religions and re-incarnation. Buddhists sought to absolve humans of all values so they would not care to exist or not exist. Today, even secular-atheists still harbor this psychological obfuscation, and it is manifested in sentiments like yours, that seek to derive so value from death. It gives life meaning, it is the end of a story, it makes way for later generations, its unnatural to want to live for ever, immortality would be boring, bla bla bla. It’s all ridiculous, and the perpetuation of this psychological attitude, which fundamentally WANTS to die, is the primary reason why so little gets done in defeating, in general, aging and death.

[bmacwilliam]

Victor's correct on this one, but you've got it askew.

" Do you seriously embody the notion that all things, to be truly valued, must be taken away from you?"

No, but the possibility of losing them, combined with rarity or difficulty in acquiring them, among other attributes, does create value.

"Must Angie be taken from you so you can value truly value Angie?"

Ok, I'll leave that alone, but talk about a lob-ball!! Seriously, she must be FREE TO LEAVE at any time for her to have value.

"Death does not give life value, it does not make a life have meaning,"

Yes it does, but you don't have to die to live (it's the possibility of death at any time). The eventual inevitability of death does indeed make life precious.

"I think you need to sit down and think about this mentality a little more, this attitude"

Victor needs to sit down and think about a lot of things, but in this case it's you who needs the reflection.

"its unnatural to want to live for ever, immortality would be boring, bla bla bla."

Forever? Mortality is a defining characteristic of being human. Change that and more things change than you might think - all the rules change. But nothing wrong with living for a very very long time.

Bob

[Matus1976]

Victor's correct on this one, but you've got it askew.

" Do you seriously embody the notion that all things, to be truly valued, must be taken away from you?"

No, but the possibility of losing them, combined with rarity or difficulty in acquiring them, among other attributes, does create value.

But all of these only create value because you can compare the state of having them with the state of not having them, something not possible with LIFE. You can not compare being alive with being dead, you no longer exist and so can not compare anything.

"Must Angie be taken from you so you can value truly value Angie?"

Ok, I'll leave that alone, but talk about a lob-ball!! Seriously, she must be FREE TO LEAVE at any time for her to have value.

That is not the same thing. It would be like saying "Oh, hey Victor, everything is great here with Angie, so YANK sorry, shes gone now, but hey, now you truly know her value!"

Life is not 'free to leave' you at anytime, as if it has it's own mind, value, and goals. So it's not the same thing.

"Death does not give life value, it does not make a life have meaning,"

Yes it does, but you don't have to die to live (it's the possibility of death at any time). The eventual inevitability of death does indeed make life precious.

Life is intrinsically precious, it would be precious even if i lived a thousand or million years. It is bad to never have something good. It is better to have something good and lose it, but it is better still to have something good (in this case Life) and to keep it. Even so, you could always just kill yourself if you really thought your life had no more value.

"I think you need to sit down and think about this mentality a little more, this attitude"

Victor needs to sit down and think about a lot of things, but in this case it's you who needs the reflection.

In this case it's you who needs the reflection, you are parroting just common pyschological colloqialisms born of a pathetic attempt to obfuscate death.

"its unnatural to want to live for ever, immortality would be boring, bla bla bla."

Forever? Mortality is a defining characteristic of being human. Change that and more things change than you might think - all the rules change. But nothing wrong with living for a very very long time.

I was, of course, paraphrasing the many silly objections people make when utlimately defending death. Funny, I would define human as a rational living entity which productively seeks to acquire values. Not 'something that can die' In fact having the potential of an indefinate age-less life span would make life far more precious, since if you died in some silly accident you would be losing a lot more of a life than that bound by 'natural' life spans.

[Matus1976]

Sorry I meant to post this in the "Ethics" room, can it be moved?

[bmacwilliam]

"In fact having the potential of an indefinate age-less life span would make life far more precious, since if you died in some silly accident you would be losing a lot more of a life than that bound by 'natural' life spans. "

Not thinking correctly. Life is very important to the individual either way, it doesn't become more precious because death is just less likely. Importance to the individual determines behaviour. Just because someone dies in a freak accident at age 2000 as opposed to age 40 doesn't mean the older's life is more valuable to him - in fact since he's had more life, I could argue it's LESS valuable.

How would immortality affect birth then? Families?

How would immortality affect ethics, politics and economics?

Retirement? Evolution?

Could we live for a millenium without going psychotic? Maybe, maybe NOT.

How would immortality not profoundly affect just about everything we call human?

Sloppy thinking.

Bob

[Matus1976]

"In fact having the potential of an indefinate age-less life span would make life far more precious, since if you died in some silly accident you would be losing a lot more of a life than that bound by 'natural' life spans. "

Not thinking correctly. Life is very important to the individual either way, it doesn't become more precious because death is just less likely. Importance to the individual determines behaviour. Just because someone dies in a freak accident at age 2000 as opposed to age 40 doesn't mean the older's life is more valuable to him - in fact since he's had more life, I could argue it's LESS valuable.

Bob you are not thinking correctly. People live much riskier lives now because they are sure they are going to die anyway within 60 or 70 years. With that natural limitation removed, people would probably engage in much less risky behavior. This is generally true when comparing nations which have longer life spans to nations with shorter life spans, those in the former are less likely to engage in risky behavior. You might argue that the potential for living longer would make life less valuable, but that doesnt mean your argument would be any good.

How would immortality affect birth then? Families?

Who cares? Are you a utilitarian all the sudden? A conservative crying about the breakdown of traditional families?

It would probably drastically reduce birth rates and make family bonds stronger, as one would come to know many multiple generations of their own family. If you can wait a hundred years to have children you would probably be less likely to have them within the typical 30 year span. This same trend is shown in every developed post industrialized nations, birth rates drop precipitously. Think about it for 10 seconds Bob, lest you are doing sloppy thinking.

How would immortality affect ethics, politics and economics?

Are you suggesting that if a negative political or economic consequence was found because of a potential to indefinate life spans, you would *outlaw* such treatment? I wasnt aware you valued arbitrary conceptions of 'natural' life spans over the lives of individuals. If I have the potential to live an indefinate life span, I couldnt care less about the economic consequences to a socialist nation. As a living being I am more important that a collection of ideas among other living beings.

Retirement? Evolution?

Could we live for a millenium without going psychotic? Maybe, maybe NOT.

How would immortality not profoundly affect just about everything we call human?

"Sloppy thinking." Indeed. Who cares? This is completely irrelevant. We are talking about whether death makes life more valuable, now you are trying to change the topic to one of the social consequences of indefinate life spans. Are you conceding than the point that you can not possibly subjectively compare life with non-life in order to derive more value to the former? If you go pyschotic after living for a millenia, feel free to kill yourself. If you have a healthy body and mind indefinately, why retire? It probably would affect many things we call 'human' who cares? It also might very well make us all much more human.

[BAMF]

Bob you are not thinking correctly. People live much riskier lives now because they are sure they are going to die anyway within 60 or 70 years. With that natural limitation removed, people would probably engage in much less risky behavior. This is generally true when comparing nations which have longer life spans to nations with shorter life spans, those in the former are less likely to engage in risky behavior.

Uhh...I'm guessing they'd engage in even 'riskier' behavior (if you can even call it that). I mean, who's gonna stop me if I kill someone? I can't get the death penalty. I'll fuck whoever I want...if I get an STD, who cares? It can't kill me. Chaos.

I don't understand that logic ("people live much riskier lives because they are sure they are going to die anyway..."). My impression was that people acted more cautiously because of that limitation. I know I do. But also, I'm a teenager, so I'm immortal anyway...Teehee!

[bmacwilliam]

My point is simply

1) Immortality has profound consequences that you either deny, haven't thought about, or don't care about.

2) Mortality has an equally profound positive effect on the value of life.

"If you can wait a hundred years to have children "...

If you can wait a hundred years to do ANYTHING, that puts a whole new twist on procrastination.

"those in the former [long lifespan] are less likely to engage in risky behavior."

Risk behaviour is associated with what one has to lose in a evolutionary sense. This is precisely why young men are far more likely to engage in riskier behaviour - it's an evolution thing - inherent. Risk behaviour is not connected to lifespan. However, as one matures, risk aversion becomes the norm. Financial risk aversion would become rampant as people got wealthier.

"If you have a healthy body and mind indefinately, why retire?"

Better question, why work if you have tons of dough? Some would, some wouldn't. My point is that wealth concentration would get all messed up if retirement was indefinite. Look into the economic concept of the "paradox of thrift" and extrapolate that to the extreme. Is this a reason not to live long? Of course not, but I simply point out that EVERYTHING changes and you just dismiss it because you haven't thought about it.

I asked "How would immortality not profoundly affect just about everything we call human?"

You responded

""Sloppy thinking." Indeed. Who cares? This is completely irrelevant. "

Clearly this indicates you have given no thought any implications of increased life span/immortality including the consequence of how life is valued. Life has little value without the possibility of death, that's pretty clear. In fact, you've demonstrated a remarkable ignorance regarding the basic concept of value itself.

Bob

[Matus1976]

Bob you are not thinking correctly. People live much riskier lives now because they are sure they are going to die anyway within 60 or 70 years. With that natural limitation removed, people would probably engage in much less risky behavior. This is generally true when comparing nations which have longer life spans to nations with shorter life spans, those in the former are less likely to engage in risky behavior.

Uhh...I'm guessing they'd engage in even 'riskier' behavior (if you can even call it that). I mean, who's gonna stop me if I kill someone? I can't get the death penalty. I'll fuck whoever I want...if I get an STD, who cares? It can't kill me. Chaos.

I don't understand that logic ("people live much riskier lives because they are sure they are going to die anyway..."). My impression was that people acted more cautiously because of that limitation. I know I do. But also, I'm a teenager, so I'm immortal anyway...Teehee!

I think you make the mistake of confusing metaphysical immortality (an impossibility) with indefinate lifespans. Also, as I said, nations with shorter average life expectancies experience people engaging more often in riskier behavior. Think about it, if you could remain physiologically 25 years of age indefinately, would you play russian roulette? Would you speed without your seatbelt? Would you drink and drive? If you do something stupid, you could be missing out on thousands of years of an enjoyable life time. Right now, no matter what you do, you will probably be dead in 50 years, so whats the big deal if you die trying to do something stupid? Its just 50 years of life you missed out on. Compare that with missing out on 500 or 5000 years of life.

And if all diseases were cured, so what if you fucked anyone you wanted? You wouldnt be anyone I morally looked up to, but so? Also, is the threat of disease really what stops you from sleeping with everyone NOW?

[Matus1976]

My point is simply

My point is that you are continuing to obfuscate the original point of contention. do you or do you not think that dying gives additional value to being alive, do you concede that all of those comparisons of having vs not having require a subjective point of view from which to compare them and are thus irrelevant to death (since you have no subjective point of view of being dead)

1) Immortality has profound consequences that you either deny, haven't thought about, or don't care about.

Think whatever you want, but it's you that has given very little thought to the topic, as suggested by your knee jerk appeals to economic issues and population issues. What would make humans immortal? (lets use the more accurate term 'indefinate lifespan' since metaphysical immortality is an impossibility) generally defeating aging and diseases would be required to do that. If aging is defeated, of what relavence is the question of 'retirement'? If you are healthy enough to work indefinately, you wouldnt need to retire. Converseley the most modicum effort at planning for retirment would make you able to retire and live off investments after some time, be 100 years or 1000 years. But these questions are not relavent as to whether or not YOU think DEATH makes your life MORE VALUABLE. Philosophically, you ultimately WANT to die.

"If you can wait a hundred years to have children "...

If you can wait a hundred years to do ANYTHING, that puts a whole new twist on procrastination.

Sure, so?

"those in the former [long lifespan] are less likely to engage in risky behavior."

Risk behaviour is associated with what one has to lose in a evolutionary sense.

Oh, so now we are evolutionarily programmed robots? Right, I forget I am engaging in this debate and studying objectivism because I want to propogate my genes; I just want to get laid.

This is precisely why young men are far more likely to engage in riskier behaviour - it's an evolution thing - inherent. Risk behaviour is not connected to lifespan.

Can you back that claim up, or is this just some armchair pyschologizing? Risk behavior is not connected to lifespan AT ALL? Are you sure about that? Clearly it is a complex topic but to assert it has nothing to do with anything except trying to get females attention is absurd.

However, as one matures, risk aversion becomes the norm. Financial risk aversion would become rampant as people got wealthier.

Indeed, so whats the problem?

"If you have a healthy body and mind indefinately, why retire?"

Better question, why work if you have tons of dough? Some would, some wouldn't. My point is that wealth concentration would get all messed up if retirement was indefinite. Look into the economic concept of the "paradox of thrift" and extrapolate that to the extreme. Is this a reason not to live long? Of course not, but I simply point out that EVERYTHING changes and you just dismiss it because you haven't thought about it.

The same point I make above, you can work forever, if you want, always learning new things. Or you could retire, and do nothing, as long as you want. The economic consequences? Who cares, unless you are suggesting that life extending medicines should be witheld because of what you percieve the economic consequences might be, again, you are implicitly appealing to utilitarianism. I do not brush off your objections because I haven't considered the topic, you know nothing about me so quit that sloppy thinking and projectioning you are doing, it's more indicative that you have done little thinking on the topic because your objections are the Objectivist equivalent of "well if everyone was selfish we would all kill each other" I personally attended a lecture presented by David Friedman, the son of Milton Friedman, on the economic consequences of indefinate life spans. It was interesting, but no where in this lecture was he even remotely hinting, like a knee jerk reactionist, that we ought to consider not *allowing* indefinate life spans if dire economic consequences are found.

Dr. Friedman asks provocative questions about the future of the family unit, a typical career path, and the economic outlook for society as a whole. Will forty-five years of work and then centuries of leisure become the norm? Will there be one family once or one every fifty years? Will we face mass unemployment, mass leisure or overpopulation? Sharing insights from his most recent book, still in writing, Dr. Friedman navigates through the many potential consequences of an extended lifespan.

etc. There will no doubt be many complicated scenarios that arise if humans achieved inexpensive and plentiful indefinate life spans. Does that mean we should not allow them? No. As such, those objections, in addition to being wild speculation, are completely irrelevant.

I asked "How would immortality not profoundly affect just about everything we call human?"

You responded

""Sloppy thinking." Indeed. Who cares? This is completely irrelevant. "

Clearly this indicates you have given no thought any implications of increased life span/immortality including the consequence of how life is valued. Life has little value without the possibility of death, that's pretty clear. in fact, you've demonstrated a remarkable ignorance regarding the basic concept of value itself.

Clearly this indicated you have given no thought on any of the implications of increased lfe span, including the consequences of how life is valued. Clearly it indicates you are trying to obfuscate the obvious and disgusting utilitiarian implications of your reactionary comments. Clearly Life has tremendous value regardless of the possibility of death, thats pretty clear. In fact, you've demonstrated a remarkable ingornace regarding the basic concept of value itself. Every single example you have used where the loss of something contributes to it's value requires a subjective comparison of the two states, duh, NOT POSSIBLE when you are dead.

Hmm, lets see, a Value is something that we seek to acquire or perpetuate. Apparently your definition of value is something you seek to acquire only if your are perpetaully threatened by losing it. Yeah. okaaaay.

Bob Mac is, indeed, a religious deathist.

[Johnny]

It is hard to fathom not dying (or at least life spans 10 or 20 times longer than what we have now) and I can understand people find such an idea as alien to them. Of course it would be a strange thought, humanity has experienced death for its entire existence, to all of a sudden think about a time where people don't die (at least not of old age) is a radical concept. But you must set aside preconceived notions about death. Death is a genetic disease of which we all have. Our bodies are programmed genetically to stop regenerating cells. There is no meaning to that otherthan a left over evolutionary trait that permits natural selection. But since the beginning of human civilization, we have rejected the notion that nature must dictate how we live. Our intelligence, has let us shape our environment to suit us! No longer the other way around, where genetic mutations and natural selection was necessary for us to suit the changing environment.

To value one's life requires the logical conclusion one will do what one can to extend that life (within reason). Taking penicillin to combat a bacterial infection, is a result of our valuing life. To say it would be unnatural for humans to live for millenia and conquer aging, is equally as valid as saying it is unnatural to take penicillin to kill a bacterial infection. Penicillin, chemotherapy, anti-viral drugs, heart surgery, organ transplants, all of these things unnaturally extend our life spans, but to accept these procedures and then turn around and reject reprogramming our genetic code to continue regenerating our cells, is not a logically consistent position. If you reject one kind of life extending technology, you must reject them all if you are to be consistent.

[BaalChatzaf]

It is hard to fathom not dying (or at least life spans 10 or 20 times longer than what we have now) and I can understand people find such an idea as alien to them. Of course it would be a strange thought, humanity has experienced death for its entire existence, to all of a sudden think about a time where people don't die (at least not of old age) is a radical concept. But you must set aside preconceived notions about death. Death is a genetic disease of which we all have.

Not a disease. Apoptosis is -normal- functioning. Dying is a built in function of living things on this planet. Living forever would be abnormal.

Bob Kolker

[Matus1976]

It is hard to fathom not dying (or at least life spans 10 or 20 times longer than what we have now) and I can understand people find such an idea as alien to them. Of course it would be a strange thought, humanity has experienced death for its entire existence, to all of a sudden think about a time where people don't die (at least not of old age) is a radical concept. But you must set aside preconceived notions about death. Death is a genetic disease of which we all have.

Not a disease. Apoptosis is -normal- functioning. Dying is a built in function of living things on this planet. Living forever would be abnormal.

Bob Kolker

Thats not true, many living organisms do not have any pre-programmed genetic senscence in them, many kinds of trees, some types of fish, some types of frogs, lobsters, etc. Regardless, I dont look to how nature has made us for any kind of declarations on how life *ought* to be.

[Johnny]

It is hard to fathom not dying (or at least life spans 10 or 20 times longer than what we have now) and I can understand people find such an idea as alien to them. Of course it would be a strange thought, humanity has experienced death for its entire existence, to all of a sudden think about a time where people don't die (at least not of old age) is a radical concept. But you must set aside preconceived notions about death. Death is a genetic disease of which we all have.

Not a disease. Apoptosis is -normal- functioning. Dying is a built in function of living things on this planet. Living forever would be abnormal.

Bob Kolker

Thats not true, many living organisms do not have any pre-programmed genetic senscence in them, many kinds of trees, some types of fish, some types of frogs, lobsters, etc. Regardless, I dont look to how nature has made us for any kind of declarations on how life *ought* to be.

Exactly, and the point Baal missed that I made in that same post is that we form the environment to suit us because we have intelligence, at one time it worked backwards, evolution was responsible for changing us to suit the environment. So how nature has programmed us is irrelevant. We were programmed to die from a whole mess of bacterial infections but we take penicillin.

[BAMF]

I think you make the mistake of confusing metaphysical immortality (an impossibility) with indefinate lifespans. Also, as I said, nations with shorter average life expectancies experience people engaging more often in riskier behavior. Think about it, if you could remain physiologically 25 years of age indefinately, would you play russian roulette? Would you speed without your seatbelt? Would you drink and drive? If you do something stupid, you could be missing out on thousands of years of an enjoyable life time. Right now, no matter what you do, you will probably be dead in 50 years, so whats the big deal if you die trying to do something stupid? Its just 50 years of life you missed out on. Compare that with missing out on 500 or 5000 years of life.

And if all diseases were cured, so what if you fucked anyone you wanted? You wouldnt be anyone I morally looked up to, but so? Also, is the threat of disease really what stops you from sleeping with everyone NOW?

I'll take your word for it that "nations with shorter life expectancies experience people engaging more often in riskier behavior." Or will I?

Uhhh, actually, I play russian roulette and speed drunk without a seatbelt at the same time. I am unafraid! Ah, to be a teen!

In all seriousness though, you began this thread to refute Victor's argument, but you've changed the meaning of what he had to say to better suit your argument as is shown in the following statement:

My point is that you are continuing to obfuscate the original point of contention.

What would make humans immortal? (lets use the more accurate term 'indefinate lifespan' since metaphysical immortality is an impossibility)

How funny you should accuse Bob of "obfuscating the original point of contention" in the exact same post where you do just what you are accusing. I repeat, "indefinite lifespan" was not what Victor was speaking of, but, in fact, "immortality".

[Dodger]

Damn.

Kori wins this round.

[BAMF]

Okay, ref, now lift my glove in the air and declare me victorious.

Edited May 15, 2007 by Kori

[Matus1976]

In all seriousness though, you began this thread to refute Victor's argument, but you've changed the meaning of what he had to say to better suit your argument as is shown in the following statement:

My point is that you are continuing to obfuscate the original point of contention.

What would make humans immortal? (lets use the more accurate term 'indefinate lifespan' since metaphysical immortality is an impossibility)

How funny you should accuse Bob of "obfuscating the original point of contention" in the exact same post where you do just what you are accusing. I repeat, "indefinite lifespan" was not what Victor was speaking of, but, in fact, "immortality".

The problem is, people use "immortality" to mean both an indefinately long lifespan (one without predetermined limitations such as aging) and also one of indestructable permanence. Which did Victor mean? he said

"Wow, I believe “life eternal” would zap life of any meaning!"

And this was in response to Mark Weiss's thread where we was upset at comtemplating the cessation of his own existence. Why would Victor talk about "life eternal" zapping life of meaning when responding to someone fretting about death except as a thinly veiled attempt to make someone feel good about their own demise? He is, in effect, saying "yeah, it sucks that you might die someday, but heck imagine if you were indestructable and could never die!!! oh the horror!!!" or he is saying "yeah, it sucks you might die someday, but imagine how terrible it would be if you lived a really really long time?"

Literal immortality, an indestructable being, is a metaphysical impossibility, and while Rand's indestructable robot analogy is excellent for identifying a primary standard of morality, it should not be taken to mean that efforts at living a perpetual existence would rob life of meaning. One will always retain the choice to cease to exist, life will still always, no matter how technologically advanced we get, require a set of directed actions to sustain your existence. But the indestructable robot analogy is too often taken as proof that life extension would devalue life, which is absurd, with people routinely appealing to death as a source of value (giving life meaning, etc)

See some other threads at other Rand inspired forums on the topic

I never cease to be amazed by the people who seek to find some value in death. I have participated in a few discussions on indefinate life spans on Rand inspired forums and am always in the voice of the minority, people almost always end up appealing to some form of "without death life has no meaning" etc, I think these psychological knee jerk reactions to philosophically accepting indefinate life spans are defense mechanisms which have come from the fact that for 90,000 years mankind has had to pyschologically deal with his own inevitable demise. A difficult thing so we make up all sorts of nonsense religions and philosophies, an ever lasting after life, convince yourself life has no value and so you wont be bothered by death (the Buddhist tactic) or even as a secular atheist convince yourself that you cant truly appreciate life without death looming over you, or something similiar.

Here are some of the conversations I have had with 'Objectivists' who want to die

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.p...st&p=146879

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDi...ns/1166.shtml#7

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Quotes/0859.shtml#0

http://rebirthofreason.com/cgi-bin/SHQ/SHQ...amp;Thread=1166

do you think living an indefinate life span (a life where you get to live, essentially, as long as you choose to live) as something that would make your life less meaningfull?

[bmacwilliam]

do you think living an indefinate life span (a life where you get to live, essentially, as long as you choose to live) as something that would make your life less meaningfull?

Talk about obfuscation! We've gone from 'valuing' life, to 'worshipping' death, to life 'less meaningful'. Why are diamonds valuable? Gold? Money? Anything?

1) People want or need "it"

2) "It" is scarce or limited

Value is directly connected to these concepts. Immortality adversly affects #2. Does immortality eliminate the value of life? Probably not, but it can do nothing but diminish it.

You say life is worth more because you have more to lose. Hmmm... Is an ounce of gold worth more to you when you're poor, and that's all you've got or when you're fabulously wealthy and have truckloads of gold?

Is a glass of water more valuable when you're dying of thirst and it's the only one around, or when you're floating in a sea of fresh, drinkable water? So, is life more valuable when you've only got a little left, or when you have an unlimited supply? Ask someone who's got a month to live, see what they say. That's a really tough question isn't it? Hint - NO it's NOT!

Let me clarify my position by adding one more word.

- It's pretty darn clear you haven't given this topic any serious LOGICAL thought. -

Bob

[Matus1976]

do you think living an indefinate life span (a life where you get to live, essentially, as long as you choose to live) as something that would make your life less meaningfull?

Talk about obfuscation! We've gone from 'valuing' life, to 'worshipping' death, to life 'less meaningful'. Why are diamonds valuable? Gold? Money? Anything?

1) People want or need "it"

2) "It" is scarce or limited

All of these presuppose the ability to compare the state of having something with the state of not having something, which is completely irrelevant to the question of existence. Also, people want or need things because it provides a service to them, or it is proven useful to some degree, either in further life, as in the literal mechanistic process of life, or in furthing life, as in a good life worth living. Things we seek make our lives more enjoyable, but to seek anything which makes life enjoyable, you must first and foremost seek the things which make life possible. To define value based solely on how prevalent something is, is absurd, it presumes worth is only relative, and nothing has any absolute value whatsover. Life has absolute value, because to value anything, you must be alive. That people want or need it is not a definition or an exaplanation of why things are valuable, it is restating the same thing. Things are valuable because people want or need them? Duh. WHY do they want or need them? Because it allows them to continue to live, or because it allows them to live what they percieve is a better life.

Value is directly connected to these concepts. Immortality adversly affects #2. Does immortality eliminate the value of life? Probably not, but it can do nothing but diminish it.

If how scarce or not scarce something is (your #2) is your primary condition for judging the value of something, then you live a sad and pathetic life.

You say life is worth more because you have more to lose. Hmmm... Is an ounce of gold worth more to you when you're poor, and that's all you've got or when you're fabulously wealthy and have truckloads of gold?

Is a glass of water more valuable when you're dying of thirst and it's the only one around, or when you're floating in a sea of fresh, drinkable water?

All of these examples, again, presuppose the ability to compare before and after states. These are irrlevant to the question of life and death, you can not subjectively compare a state of non-existence with a state of existence, like you can compare wealth with non-wealth or health with non-health.

Additionally, being fabulously wealthy and financially secure does not diminish the value of productive work in ones life, simply because productive work is no longer necessary to sustain your existence.

So, is life more valuable when you've only got a little left, or when you have an unlimited supply? Ask someone who's got a month to live, see what they say. That's a really tough question isn't it? Hint - NO it's NOT!

Life is intrisincally always more valuable than non-life. Whether you would find value in a life with an indefinate life span is up to you, feel free to kill yourself. People understand how much they want to live more when they are close to losing their life because it is forcibly on the forefront of their concioussness, not because actual death is required to give live value, which is an idiotic concept, because values are only possible to living entities. You will always value life over non-life, up until the instance of death, where you are no longer capable of valuing anything, because you no longer exist.

Bob, It's pretty darn clear you haven't given this topic any serious LOGICAL thought.

Edited May 15, 2007 by Matus1976

[Brant Gaede]

If things were different other things would be different. If you reach your 90th birthday you only have a 20% chance of reaching your 95th. No one thing especially kills people in this age group. Until these and other such data significantly change for the better, talk about living significantly longer and human valuing is just talk. Better to go outside and cut the grass, walk the dog, dig a well and bury that body. Uh, which reminds me . . .

--Brant

Edited May 15, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Matus1976]

If things were different other things would be different. If you reach your 90th birthday you only have a 20% chance of reaching your 95th. No one thing especially kills people in this age group. Until this data significantly change for the better, talk about living significantly longer is just talk. Better to go outside and cut the grass.

--Brant

I disagree, ultimately, as many people in this thread have demonstrated, and the other threads I linked, allegedly life loving rational people still find some kind of value in death, and ultimately, for some reason or another, convince themselves they want to die. What is the point of this? It is born of pyschologically having to rationalize the cessation of our own existence through the 90,000 years humans have existed. Logically all sorts of nonsense would arise, and we see no 'objectivists' and also many 'secular' educated people making up reasons to cease to exist. Philosophically, these people who accept death as something that *ought* to happen (which comprise the vast majority of the population) undermine any serious efforts to try to do something about it. In the past, this didnt matter, but today, with the ability to control individual atoms, reprogram human genetic codes, change gene expressions with epigenetics, etc etc etc, we stand on the cusp of a technological revolution which could see the end of aging and disease for humanity. Most people, currently, would oppose any explicity efforts to actually 'defeat' aging, not for any scientific reason of the difficulties involved, but because they think, and argue, that we *ought* to die.

Perhaps it will not be this generation, or even the next, but sometime, soon, humanity will conquer aging and disease. Convincing ourselves that we are supposed to die undermines any effort to do that. People like Leon Kass, chairman of the US presidents Council on Bioethics, 'best known as a leader in the effort to stop human embryonic stem cell and cloning research' (-wikipedia) embodies this hostility

Leon Kass:

"simply to covet a prolonged life span for ourselves is both a sign and a cause of our failure to open ourselves to procreation and to any higher purpose. … [The] desire to prolong youthfulness is not only a childish desire to eat one’s life and keep it; it is also an expression of a childish and narcissistic wish incompatible with devotion to posterity"

Desiring to live a long time is too "selfish"

Leon Kass:

"the finitude of human life is a blessing for every individual, whether he knows it or not"

I'll kill you so you'll truly value your life.

Edited May 15, 2007 by Matus1976

[bmacwilliam]

"All of these presuppose the ability to compare the state of having something with the state of not having something, which is completely irrelevant to the question of existence. "

Haha... That's funny! So you're not making a judgment that life is more valuable that non-life? So that, according to you life has value compared to non-life but YOU are not comparing the two states to make that determination? Yeah right.

"To define value based solely on how prevalent something is, is absurd, "

I didn't do this. I only asserted the concept of value depends partly on relative abundance or scarcity. This is hardly my idea - I wish - rather is almost the definition of Economics.

You think you are arguing with me when in fact you're denying the entire concept of Economics and supply/demand and how it relates to value.

"These are irrlevant to the question of life and death, you can not subjectively compare a state of non-existence with a state of existence, like you can compare wealth with non-wealth or health with non-health."

You most certainly can (and you did), it's the only way life has any value at all.

"Things are valuable because people want or need them? Duh. WHY do they want or need them? Because it allows them to continue to live, or because it allows them to live what they percieve is a better life."

That's fine, it doesn't change anything. But actually the 'want' is more accurate. Some people value harmful drugs that do not promote life. Desire is required for value, not life-promoting qualities.

Value:

1) Serves a purpose to promote or improve life

2) Scarcity

No big difference, but less accurate.

"You will always value life over non-life, up until the instance of death, where you are no longer capable of valuing anything, because you no longer exist."

So what? That's fine, but the fact remains that the more scarce or fragile life is, the more we value it.

Sorry, just reality bursting your bubble again.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

I'll kill you so you'll truly value your life.

Indeed, you'll realize very quickly how much you want to live when you face death.

Bob

P.S. - I just realized something... If you're 14 years old, this would go a long way toward explaining this foolish position. If so, I'll stop bugging you.

[Matus1976]

"All of these presuppose the ability to compare the state of having something with the state of not having something, which is completely irrelevant to the question of existence. "

Haha... That's funny! So you're not making a judgment that life is more valuable that non-life? So that, according to you life has value compared to non-life but YOU are not comparing the two states to make that determination? Yeah right.

You are either being intentionally argumentative or are incredibly stupid. Of course I am makeing the judgement call that I would prefer life over non-life, but you can not subjectively compare a state of existence with a state of non-existence in order to determine which you prefer more. I should think this is obvious. I raise this point because people usually say, like you imply, that you can know how good life is if it is taken away from you (which is different from being forced to conciously recognize it's value at that very moment because of the threat of it being taken away from you) just like you can't know how good freedom is until you are a slave, or you can't know how good comfort is until you are tortured, all of these, however, require you to subjectively be able to experience both states and then to compare the two. As I have said a dozen times, you can not subjectively compare non-existence with existence in order to value the later or more understand which you value more, just because you dropped my word 'subjective' from my statement doesnt mean you have some grand insight, it just means you are ignorant or intentionally disingenous.

I said in post #1

Do you seriously embody the notion that all things, to be truly valued, must be taken away from you? Must you be enslaved to value freedom? Must you be tortured to value non-torture?

all of these require a continuation of a subjective experience where the situation is compared before and after the thing we value is lost. You get to say “oh, this is what life is like with this” and compare that to “this is what life is like without it” You can NEVER, however, subjectively experience non-existence

I said to YOU in post #3

But all of these only create value because you can compare the state of having them with the state of not having them, something not possible with LIFE. You can not compare being alive with being dead, you no longer exist and so can not compare anything.

I said, again to YOU in post #5

do you concede that all of those comparisons of having vs not having require a subjective point of view from which to compare them and are thus irrelevant to death (since you have no subjective point of view of being dead)

In post 20, I again said

All of these presuppose the ability to compare the state of having something with the state of not having something, which is completely irrelevant to the question of existence.

You either have a spectacularly large retarded spot in your brain regarding this concept, or you are just arguing for it's own sake, either way since you have no interest in a legitimate discussion I see no reason to continue.