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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

Michael, can you be more specific as to which posting guidelines I am infringing on? If so, I will make an effort to no longer infringe on them.

Thank you for saying that. The specific part is below:

Objectivist Living Posting Guidelines and Legal Notice

Posting Guidelines

1. . . . Thus the tenor is slanted toward understanding, discussion and sometimes education, not preaching or conversion.

2. The practice of good manners is a value sought and encouraged on this forum. Obnoxious and offensive behavior is not welcome.

I am flexible, but only up to a point.

For an example of flexibility, since scanning this thread, I have been thinking about how to approach an identification problem I see in your thesis. On one hand, I believe my input could be valuable to your thinking, and on the other, you are seeing something about life spans from an outside-the-box approach that is challenging an aspect of commonly held beliefs. I happen like outside-the-box approaches, even the ones I end up disagreeing with. I don't end up disagreeing with them all, either. They need to be chewed on and discussed for me to accept or reject them (like most all OL members).

However, I am only interested in the idea. I am not interested in your opinion of me or any other poster and, for myself, I generally (almost always) refrain from expressing an opinion about you as a person or your moral character. Nor do I pigeonhole you into standard negative Objectivist categories (second-hander, social metaphysician, nihilist, mystic, intrinsicist, subjectivist, etc.) if I find I disagree with an idea you hold. (As a matter of fact, my default attitude is always that I am discussing things with an intelligent and moral person—and it takes a lot for me to change that.) I am also not interested in heavy-handed sarcasm, mocking or speculation about what you think I think you think, etc. (Some rhetoric is good and some horsing around, but not that.) This is a discussion forum, not a playground.

I analyze the balance in the idea/personality mix. To me it is similar to a signal to noise ratio. I see whether there is any interest in understanding or whether there is a high level of misrepresenting ideas, i.e., whether there is an exchange of knowledge or some kind of personality competition going on, and then decide whether I wish to enter the discussion or not. Even recognizing an increasingly high noise level on this thread, I have seen some glimmers of ideas that might be interesting to pursue, so I let the posts stand, including the one you made trying to offend me. But I am not an altruist, nor do I practice sanction of the victim, so there is a limit.

In the end, you are an adult and sane. That means you know perfectly well what good manners are. I require good manners on OL. I fully appreciate your question and stated intent not to infringe this. I mean that in all sincerity.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Of course, this is the kind of comment I am talking about. You arent really saying anything, you just come in with some vague generalizations with no information, no evidence, no examples, which no one can respond to.

Michael,

We can discuss this with examples, etc., if you like. I want to get the good manners issue settled and see if we can agree on how we define our terms. I don't think it should be difficult. Who knows? Maybe we can come to some kind of understanding or at least a higher degree of clarity of ideas.

I agree with your appraisal of vague or overly-broad statements that are turned into personal evaluations. They are worthless and a waste of time.

Michael

[Matus1976]

you have apparently lived a difficult life of financial troubles

Well, no. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I've traveled the world, had plenty of luxury and good fortune. I wish there was some way to pour oil on troubled waters and continue discussion of this topic. I think it's an important one.

Well for starters taking the time to formulate this sincere response is a good way to proceed

Miss Rand's indestructible robot killed deity, whose existence is said to be unconditional, eternal. Nothing can be for it or against it, hence 'God' could not have created man, is deaf to prayer, takes no notice of human heartache. Or so it seems to me.

My point has been that many objectivists always react to the 'immortality' discussion with a quick knee jerk appeal to the 'indestructable robot' even though Rand and Piekoff explicitly were talking about an unchanging, unithinking, unfeeling, indestructable robot, none of which are applicable to a sentient being. The analogy served the purpose of highlighting that life is and ought to be the our highest value (and again I say, a particular good life, which I think is implicit in Rand's philosophy though often has to be explicitly stated) but somehow many objectivists and admirers of Rand twist that analogy and interpret it to mean that death is ultimately are highest value, (of course, only after a 'natural' life span) since, they think, it is the only thing that can give value to life. *That* is twisted.

The indestructable robot analogy emphasized that life is and ought to be the goal of every action (because a being whose existence was indepedant of actions has nothing directing its actions) not that the threat of something being taken away must always be present in order to enjoy that something. Indefinate life span or not, lacking predifined limits on a life due to aging or disease or not; life, a particular kind of life, a good life, is and ought to be the goal of all of our actions, perpetually.

Even so, the analogy is limited because it does little to distinguish between the mere mechanical existence of life, and living a particular kind of life, a good, eudaimonic, life.

It was a mistake on my part to suggest that you or anyone else had to write or undertake a heroic journey, although I think individualism requires courage.

Fair enough

A long life well lived is a widely shared hope. This is more easily obtained in North America (the New World) and Western Europe (the Old World) than elsewhere (the Third World). Noting an obvious fact doesn't make someone a socialist.

true, but the way you entered the discussion, guns blazing, asserting that living an indefinate life span is only a fantasy of the burgeoise, the medicine is only a toy of the rich, is it not reasonable that I interpreted this as socialist / communist rhetorchic? As with all things that are new, only the rich will have them at first, they will spread to the rest of the population as the over all wealth of the population increases. But because some people have something, instead of all, this is absolutely no rational justification to make sure *no people, ever, have it* That is absurd. It is always better to have some people able to have something good over no people having it.

Today a larger percentage of people in the world enjoy decent lives than ever before in the history of the world and it is largely industrial capitalism that is responsible for this. Thats not to say that it would be good if the rest of the worlds peopel could enjoy the same benefits, but often that requires toppling whatever shitty murderous tyrant happens to oppress them, and the exceedingly difficult task of weeding out deeply ingrained corruption.

I said I was already pretty much exhausted and didn't want any extra work, thanks. That was 8 years ago. Over the course of those 8 years, I've done less. I'd like to live a while longer because I have a charming five-year-old to look after. But I doubt very much that I'll see her graduate high school. Nor is it vital that I should. Roark and Galt were orphans. Sometimes the only thing man can do is pass on the gift of life.

W.

I would much prefer to see my children (when I have them) grow into adults, and have children of their own, and their own, and their own, etc. I wish I could have known my mother, when she was young and vibrant and energetic, and my father, and my grand parents, etc. Of course proper parenting prepares a child to live a rational independant life of their own, not shield them from life, so I do not see radical life extension as presenting any problems for raising children. Would you feel the same (exhausted, etc) if you retained your youth perpetually?

Edited May 23, 2007 by Matus1976

[Guyau]

Michael D,

I was delighted to see your reflections on the essays by Prof. Hicks (#49) and Prof. Touchstone (#50). I think you came away with one error concerning Touchstone's essay, near its end. She argued that immortal beings having our endowments would create and enjoy art, since such beings would still have limitations and challenges, even if they were very different from our own (pp. 22-24).

You wondered why so much time is spent discussing Rand's immortal-, indestructible-robot scenario, when it is "a metaphysically impossible scenario." I would like to hear any ideas participants have on why Rand introduced this gedanken. Is it essential to understanding her theory of value? Is it a necessary component in making the case for her ethics?

The robot-gedanken is one of the new features Rand added in the second exposition of her ethical theory. That was "The Objectivist Ethics." It was not in her first exposition, which was "Galt's Speech" four years earlier.

My own original contribution concerning Rand's gedanken can be read at RoR. That is the Article "Vegetative Robots and Value." http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Boydst...and_Value.shtml

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mitchell Hill observed in #42 that where human life is shorter, "it would be logical to value the time spent in that short period of time, but if it were longer, it would be logical to take time for granted because there is so much available."

In my fifty-eight years, there was an interval of eight during which my medical prospect for continued life was only a couple more years. As it happened, new medicines were gradually invented that were able to sustain me indefinitely against that particular terminal disease. I do have a heightened awareness of the scarcity of time when its prospect shrinks, but there is something else. Since I was fourteen, I've almost always had more projects underway or in view than I could possibly accomplish. Having the shorter horizon definitely affected the decision of which projects to work on. I think that is a logical adaptation.

It is not only shifts in one's own likely horizon of life or shifts in one's own capabilities that will rationally occasion shifts in one's pursuits. Changes in the horizon and capabilities of a loved one can also warrant a shift in one's pursuits, as illustrated in William's recent experience.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Stephen Boydstun

[william.scherk]

My comments on the Kathleen Touchstone essay.

“Imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. [ . . . ] - Ayn Rand

[ . . .]

Why that qualifier?

I enjoyed Touchstone's essay, as a 'let's close our eyes and have some fun with our imaginations" exercise, but I kept knocking up against failure to conjure: I can't imagine it. I feel so dang bound by pedestrian, practical questions: How is it indestructible, please?

I can take flight with an idea of an entity with an open-ended life-span, but like Matus, I wonder "what the hell happens if it gets hit by a bus?"

No matter how hard I squeeze my eyes shut and pretend, Robby the Robot keeps getting slammed by a renegage Greyhound.

“Suppose that, for an immortal being, eating food would no longer be necessary to sustain life."

That was the point in the essay that I had to stop and slap myself. Again, shoddy imagination. A naggy voice, a nasty, skeptical voice intrudes: "Why do you want me to suppose that, lady? Will I be paid? How, exactly is this non-eating entity practical? How does this entity operate without energy, some kind of combustion? What gives it motive power if not some kind of 'food'?"

I frankly find it a bit easier to imagine Gawd hisself. Perhaps because the cavity of my imagination has been filled with the background noise of believers busily believing in all kinds of things.

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe

impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was

younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed

as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Now, Matus, you wonder: "Why so much time is spent discussing a metaphysically impossible scenario is beyond me."

Perhaps it is because, like me, you are a dolt.

I do thank you for offering me faint hope that I am not defective.

Edited May 24, 2007 by william.scherk

[BAMF]

I was just reading Objectivity Online and I came across an article that reminded me of this thread.

Would Immortality Be Worth It? (Stephen Hicks)

I haven't finished reading it yet, but what I read of it was interesting.

I will get back to you eventually, Matus.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Kori

[Matus1976]

I was just reading Objectivity Online and I came across an article that reminded me of this thread.

Would Immortality Be Worth It? (Stephen Hicks)

Hi Kori,

Stephen Boydstun posted a link to that essay earlier, I posted my comments on it here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=28482

[Matus1976]

They say nothing, make no claims, dont present any information, dont argue a point, only present an overacrhing generalizations as a pretentious insult so the author can give himself a big ol pat on the back.

You can make worthwhile contributions to discussions, or you can blather nonsense. Hey it's your forum, and it's your choice.

You have an interesting definition of nonsense. I have asserted in a very clear way that your ideas are completely opposite to the basic fundamentals of economic theory of value. You have done nothing to address this logical and true objection.

Bob, I addressed your objections based on the 'economic theory of value' multiple times, in post 20,

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.

In post 32 I wrote (to you)

Scarcity, demand, supply, etc, decide the value of an object to another person within a free economy of trade. Would my killing everyone else make you feel like your life is more valuable? Well maybe, but only because it is forcing you to really think about the issue, your life isnt actually more valuable because you are the only life. The worth of an object or service within a society of material entities which must exist through material means is decided by their supply, cost, demand, etc. The value of a life, of *your own* life, is irrelevant to how many *other* people have life. I value my fingers and eyes because I have them, and I use them to further my efforts at a *good life*, not because few other animals can see so many colors so vividly and because no other animals have the dexterity of my hands and fingers, I could not care less what the relative scarcity or supply of opposable thumbs is when I judge the value of my own, similiarly I dont care whether their are 1 million other people or 100 billion other people in the galaxy, I still value my own life just the same.

In post 37 Johnny presents some counter arguments to your position as well.

And lastly, in post 50

Readers arguing that the scarce commodity of time in life is what brings it value ought to read the second essay, which examines that claim in some detail.

In short, your argument is completely fallacious. The value of life is not based solely on it's 'scarcity', and as I said before, if you derive value *only* in relation to what is scarce and not scarce, then you are living a sad and pathetic existence, one which is focused only on the acquisition of material resources which are 'scarce' (by the way you use 'scarce') But this is all semantics anyway, because you can play the scarce basis of value any way you like, my life is precious and valuable to me because it is scarce, it is unique in the universe, there is only one life of mine, and it is the one I have no, living at this moment, it is nearly infinately valuable to me because it is so scarce. I also recommend my post 51 which addresses the value we place upon a moment, whether scarce or abundant, all moments have at least *some* value.

The value we derive from something can not rationally be said to only come from it's scarcity (though this is a major factor) The value I find in things come from many sources, but primarily the value I place on something is how conducive it is toward me living a good life.

You're just angry and emotional because you see this viewpoint as preventing or harming full bore anti-aging efforts.

That is true, our emotions are the logical responses to our deepest convictions, as such life holds a tremendous value for me, and the prevalence and continual promulgation of the idea that death holds some value (see my Leon Kass quotes posted previously) is something that does, in fact, delay progress toward defeating aging. So it is only rational that yes, such attitudes upset me, it is no different than a cult leader trying to brainwash people into drinking poison.

The two aren't really connected and you've failed to separate the arguments. There are a great deal of benefits to extending one's lifespan and most people would find attractive the idea of living a longer healthy life. What you fail to acknowledge however, is the effect that indefinite lifespans would have - a very different situation. You just flatly deny reality in this case either because your thinking is indeed sloppy or you're so emotional about the situation that you're in profound denial.

Bob, as I said before, I do not consider ruminations on the consequences of indefinate life spans as relevant, we are all each of us the smallest minority, considering the 'implications' of indefinate life spans and then using that to justify keeping indefinate life spans away from living, breathing, life loving people, is *disgusting*. As I said, it is a utilitarian ethical concern and as such of no concern to me, the only relavent point is the life we each live and whether we choose to keep living it.

Additionally, however, your 'objections' to indefinate life spans are sophomoric and hardly different that liberals scoffing that Ayn Rand is a selfish brute who says we all ought to step on each other to get ahead. It is clear to me from the rather silly objections you make that you actually havent researched the question to any great degree. Perhaps you can relay to us some of your constructive commentary on that lecture by David Friedman on the economic consequences of indefinate life spans?... oh wait, that wasnt YOU who went to that lecture, that was ME, sorry, my bad. On this topic, your thinking is in fact 'sloppy' as you like to say, but I am not here to discuss the utilitarian consequences of indefinate life spans however, if you wish to discuss that, jump over to a forum dedicated to transhumanism / extropianism / indefinate life spans / etc. I am attacking the philosophical acceptance of death that is prevalent which pyschologically undermines rational attempts to defeat aging.

You are arguing, essentially, that death ought to be valued because it makes life scarce, and because from a utilitarian perspective you think making sure people today grow old and die will be better for people who are not yet born. Neither argument is a good one.

[Matus1976]

Bob,

Here are the facts. You can know that he flatly denies reality because this is clear in his words on defining human being.

Michael

Michael, care to elaborate on that point?

[Matus1976]

Michael,

In the end, you are an adult and sane. That means you know perfectly well what good manners are. I require good manners on OL. I fully appreciate your question and stated intent not to infringe this. I mean that in all sincerity.

Michael

Fair enough Michael, so I should be more well mannered. But I want to point out that probably everything I have said here, which can be construed as 'ill mannered' is a virtual copy of the things said to me. As I pointed out before, whenever someone levies a silly irrelevant ad hominem at me, or something which nothing more than a over arching generalization, I say it right back to them. In this case, It is Bob Mac who launched with hostility and charges of 'sloppy thinking' Generally I follow the 'tit for tat with occasionally cooperate' model of discussions (as this is the most effective strategy in game theory, it is the most effective I have found in discussions) usually, its gets people to realize how pointless random vague insults like 'sloppy thinking' are and they either move right on to a sincere discussion of ideas, or if they are a troll baiting for emotional responses they get bored and leave. The occasional sincere co-operate gives a person actually interested in sincere discussion the chance to change the tone of the discussion.

Bob's favorite is "not thinking correctly" or "sloppy thinking" (when it is in fact pretty clear this topic is new to him) but such statements imply an omniscience. Bob has not read the same things i have read, engaged in the same discussions, attended the same conferences, read the same articles, had the same debates with friends, investigated the same physics and science and economics questions with the same focus, in fact Bob knows virtually nothing about me. Yet he asserts to somehow know that when judging everything *I know* I am in fact wrong in my conclusion. Talk about hubris! I am fully aware that people with the same values may hold entirely different opinions about something, and they may both in fact be logically correct because they may be forming their assessment based on different information sets. Bob, it seems, has some form of an omniscienct crystal ball that lets him instantenously know everything another person knows and then allows him to judge the worth of that persons logical conclusions! I on the other hand see that if someone holds a different logical conclusion yet seems to share a similiar value set, then it is our information sets that ought to be exchanged.

I think you did something similiar when you said

"You misjudge Wolf. But that's your choice."

What does that mean exactly? that I CHOSE to MISJUDGE Wolf? I in fact chose to JUDGE him, not MISJUDGE him, to assert that I chose to MISJUDGE him means you know all the information that I am privy to, all my value sets, all my logical conclusions, and that subsequently you know whether they are correct or not.

My ultimate purpose is a sincere discussion and developing of ideas, but I admit that in this particular topic, you are going to be hard pressed to talk me into thinking that death is ultimately, for some reason, a good thing.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"You misjudge Wolf. But that's your choice."

What does that mean exactly? that I CHOSE to MISJUDGE Wolf? I in fact chose to JUDGE him, not MISJUDGE him, to assert that I chose to MISJUDGE him means you know all the information that I am privy to, all my value sets, all my logical conclusions, and that subsequently you know whether they are correct or not.

Michael,

Of course I don't think you chose to make a mistake. It took me a while to understand what your beef actually was. (You even complained about this before.) Then, just now, I finally saw what you meant and where my over-brevity could be interpreted as something different than what I intended. Let me restate. How's this?

You are wrong about Wolf. I suggest you learn more and try again. But whether you do or not, that's your choice.

Better?

Sorry about the poor wording and any discomfort it caused you.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My ultimate purpose is a sincere discussion and developing of ideas, but I admit that in this particular topic, you are going to be hard pressed to talk me into thinking that death is ultimately, for some reason, a good thing.

Michael,

This formulation mixes cognitive and normative abstractions. Just because a person perceives a fact, that does not mean that he values it. That also does not mean that he does not try to overcome it if it is a limitation.

For example, one must recognize a defect in eyesight before one can invent corrective lenses. One must recognize death as a fact of nature before he can work towards overcoming it. If you want to use normative abstractions, you can say death is a bad thing and that would be correct. You cannot deny its metaphysical status of existing, however. I don't know what the oldest living entity is, but the members of every known species of life have a standard duration and have died so far.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

I think Michael Dickey could have substituted the inevitability of death for death in the above and it wouldn't have conflated fact/value distinctions. I don't agree with his position but I see it as a cogent one. For me, it's a happiness integral. If I were to spend lots of time on life extension, that's time I couldn't get back to do other things I enjoy. I have to make a practical judgment call about what mix of life extension activities have the biggest payoff for the least effort. I don't smoke, I exercise, I try to have a reasonable diet when my cravings don't get the best of me and I put a hat and sunscreen on when I go out in the sun for extended periods of time.

Jim

Edited May 29, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[bmacwilliam]

Matus,

You have cleary evaded the reality that we sell pieces of our life every day we work. You have placed life and its value on an imaginary pedestal and engaged in all sorts of nonsensical ramblings and rationalizations about its value to suit your unsupportable positions. We all place a clear, precise and measureable value on life according to supply and demand. To pretend we don't do this doesn't count as an argument.

Then you mentioned something about other's lives which have nothing to do with anything.

Then, to top it off you write this.

"The value we derive from something can not rationally be said to only come from it's scarcity (though this is a major factor)"

Which is EXACTLY what I said in the first place. I'm glad we agree. BTW, you've just killed your own argument with this one and you don't know why (explained later).

Edit: Here is what I stated initially:

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

You agreed with this in your statement and skewered your own argument as a result.

"all moments have at least *some* value."

Correct. When we talk about value of anything, we talk about unit value. An ounce of gold, a litre of gasoline, an hour of one's life. How do you measure the value of an hour of your life? Well, for how much did you sell it the last time you went to work?

"You are arguing, essentially, that death ought to be valued because it makes life scarce, and because from a utilitarian perspective you think making sure people today grow old and die will be better for people who are not yet born. Neither argument is a good one."

You are wrong about my motivations. My motivation stems from the simple fact that a radical increase in life on the supply side would have consequences that you deny. Take emotion out of it, the graph speaks for itself. This is why your statement acknowledging scarcity as an important value factor kills your argument. I have enough of a rigourous education to understand what a supply curve looks like and the implications of a supply shift. Obviously, you do not. I do not argue about whether or not death is good or bad, or the unborn. I simply point out that your argument lacks insight that careful thinking skills combined with a basic undergraduate education should bring. Realistically, you just need one or the other. I'll go way out on a limb and suggest that you have neither.

Bob

Edited May 29, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

Ok,

I just read a little on this "Extropian" nonsense. Here's a juicy one...

"Personal responsibility and self-determination are incompatible with authoritarian centralized control, which stifles the choices and spontaneous ordering of autonomous persons."

Do you actually think, for one second, human nature being what it is, combined with the capitalist sense of ownership, all combined with indefinite life spans would not result in a concentration of wealth, power, and authority the likes of which you've never dreamed? Perhaps it would be more likely that it would be a Rodney King world and "we'd all just get along"? What do you think would be more likely?

Extropianism: A naive dream world of the 12-year-old.

Talk about foolishness...

But ya just gotta love the web, endless entertainment...

Almost forgot. You've directly accused me of fallacy. Which one?

Bob

Edited May 29, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Matus1976]

One must recognize death as a fact of nature before he can work towards overcoming it

MSK, I do not understand the relevance of this comment. When have I ever attempted to convince people that death does not exist? In fact I am more trying to get people to recognize its true nature. The context of this discussion has been surrounding the idea that death, in some way, give life value, either because it shortens it, or it provides a reference point from which to judge life from, both arguments are fallacious and come from psychological obfuscation.

[Matus1976]

If I were to spend lots of time on life extension, that's time I couldn't get back to do other things I enjoy. I have to make a practical judgment call about what mix of life extension activities have the biggest payoff for the least effort.

Thanks James, I respect this point of view, we each must make our own judgement calls on where and how to best spend our limited time on Earth. I would not, for instance, spend my whole life pursuing a magical fountain of youth somewhere in a far away land merely for the hope of living an indefinate life span, the pay off is monumentally unlikely and I'll have wasted the good life I was capable of living now. That being said, however, I think the common perceptions abotu the likelyhood of the successes of anti-aging treatments and technologies are underestimated by the vast majority of people, I so I recommend taking a little bit of time to research the topic (if you have not all ready) you may come to the conclusion that a valuable pay off is more likely than you had previously estimated. You may want to consider contributing to medical / scientific organizations which are explicitly attempting to defeat aging. Even if you do not see the benefit from it, your children or grandchildren might. The fact that you find no philosophical value in death (unlike many people here) means You will, at least, not be opposing any explicit efforts to extend human life spans.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

Do you also find a strong reaction about the relevance of that statement as relevant to your ideas?

I'm serious.

Focusing on that gives out the message that you find it very important.

If the statement is irrelevant, just ignore it.

Michael

[Matus1976]

Bob,

You have cleary evaded the reality that we may find an intrinsic value in the smallest moment, regardless of our overall potential number of moments. You have placed life and its value on an imaginary pedestal and engaged in all sorts of nonsensical ramblings and rationalizations about its value to suit your unsupportable positions. We all place a clear, precise and measureable value on our lives for one of many reasons. To pretend we don't do this doesn't count as an argument.

Then you mentioned something about other's lives which have nothing to do with anything.

Then, to top it off you write this.

"The value we derive from something can not rationally be said to only come from it's scarcity (though this is a major factor)"

Which is EXACTLY what I said in the first place. I'm glad we agree. BTW, you've just killed your own argument with this one and you don't know why (explained later).

Bob, all your ramblings seem to be insisting that for life to have any value, it must be limited, correct? How limited ought it be? How long is the optimal age we ought to live in order to maximize, in your view, the value of each moment?

Edit: Here is what I stated initially:

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

You agreed with this in your statement and skewered your own argument as a result.

"all moments have at least *some* value."

Indeed, all moments, even the moments of an indefinate life span, have some value. I don't understand what your problem is here? I can find value in all moments, even if I had billions or trillions of them. Because I exist during these moments, they are of at least a fundamental value.

Correct. When we talk about value of anything, we talk about unit value. An ounce of gold, a litre of gasoline, an hour of one's life. How do you measure the value of an hour of your life? Well, for how much did you sell it the last time you went to work?

I do not see the point of your discussion, what are you trying to argue here?

You are wrong about my motivations. My motivation stems from the simple fact that a radical increase in life on the supply side would have consequences that you deny. Take emotion out of it, the graph speaks for itself. This is why your statement acknowledging scarcity as an important value factor kills your argument.

Scarcity is not the ONLY source of value, and making my life moments more scarce would not make my life, overall, more valuable. And again I don't particularly care about your utilitarian consequences, they are irrelevant. Can you formulate what it is you are trying to say into a logical argument, with premises, conclusions, etc, so I can understand what it is you are trying to say?

I have enough of a rigourous education to understand what a supply curve looks like and the implications of a supply shift. Obviously, you do not.

You are applying economic supply and demand curves to the very concept of life, to the fundamental pillar of the ability to value at all, how much value do you place on the ability to value something? Would the ability to value something ever have no value? The value of items in trade relate to thier relative worth to our material existence and how useful they are to us in living what we consider to be an optimum life. Life is the ability to value, you can not have values without life, you can not find a moment more or less valuyable if you do not exist. Being alive, and existing, will always have value for each moment it is true for me, regardless of how many other moments I may have like it.

Well, in short, Bob, I want to simply point out that your argument lacks insight that careful thinking skills combined with a basic undergraduate education should bring. Realistically, you just need one or the other. I'll go way out on a limb and suggest that you have neither.

[Matus1976]

I just read a little on this "Bob Mac ideas of long life" nonsense. Its really just a A naive dream world of the 12-year-old.

Do you actually think, for one second, human nature being what it is, combined with the capitalist sense of ownership, all combined with indefinite life spans would not result in a concentration of wealth, power, and authority the likes of which you've never dreamed? Perhaps it would be more likely that it would be a Rodney King world and "we'd all just get along"? What do you think would be more likely?

Ah, so the crux of Bob Mac's arguments shows it's true colors. Indefinate life spans are bad because they will contribute to the 'growing gap between the rich and the poor!' Ah, So we must make sure everyone dies young enough so as they won't acquire that much more wealth than their lazy brothers. Bob, you are a utilitiarian social engineer who wouldnt scoff at condemning billions of people to their death to satisfy your arbitrary fanciful notions of 'equality'. Hey, lets just make sure everybody dies NOW, so that they may not in the future be TOO UNEQUAL!!!

What are you doing on this forum, exactly?

Of course you would argue against indefinate life spans, because to you human lives have no value to their owners, they are only of value to your abstract notions of ideal social arrangements. I dont give a shit about the ideal world and relationship between wealth you think humanity ought to have, it is irrelevant to my life, I do not need to justify my existence by taking some special role within your idea of social order. My life is of value to me regardless of your moronic deadly social engineering tendancies, and I extend that same basic courtesy to every other human being on this planet, unlike yourself, who sees other humans only as tools to carry out your little dreams of social equality. Thankfully you have no power nor influence and are just a troll on some Rand inspired forum.

Talk about foolishness...

indeed, the attitude you express above is what one would get if they combined Pol Pot with a Luddite

[Matus1976]

Focusing on that gives out the message that you find it very important.

Huh?

I found the rest of your comment irrelevant as well, for example

"Just because a person perceives a fact, that does not mean that he values it."

When did i ever say that acknowledgeing death exists means anyone values it? I have always specifically stated that people explicitly find value in death, manifested in the things they say and attitudes that have toward it, as demonstrated in this thread and the others I have linked. 'Death gives meaning to life' and 'Living indefinately would rob life of value' is a far far different thing than saying 'things die' What is the point you are trying to get across?

This is what has been said in this thread

"the fact that life will end one day—and this fact alone—that imbues their life with vitality and meaning"

"the possibility of losing [life]...does create value"

"The eventual inevitability of death does indeed make life precious"

"Mortality has a profound positive effect on the value of life"

"Life has little value without the possibility of death"

"Living forever would be abnormal"

"it's [comparing life with non-life] the only way life has any value at all"

etc

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When did i ever say that acknowledgeing death exists means anyone values it?

Michael,

Here, as I already quoted:

My ultimate purpose is a sincere discussion and developing of ideas, but I admit that in this particular topic, you are going to be hard pressed to talk me into thinking that death is ultimately, for some reason, a good thing.

A good thing is a normative abstraction (value).

I can only go by your words. If you want to say something different, then do so.

Michael

[Matus1976]

When did i ever say that acknowledgeing death exists means anyone values it?

Michael,

Here, as I already quoted:

My ultimate purpose is a sincere discussion and developing of ideas, but I admit that in this particular topic, you are going to be hard pressed to talk me into thinking that death is ultimately, for some reason, a good thing.

A good thing is a normative abstraction (value).

I can only go by your words. If you want to say something different, then do so.

Michael

Michael, see the previous post, THESE ARE EXPLICIT EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE *FINDING VALUE* IN DEATH. These are not mere recognitions of the existence of death, these are arguments presenting the case FOR WANTING TO DIE. They are arguing that DEATH IS A GOOD THING. Do you not see the distinction between saying "Things Die" and "Things ought to WANT to DIE" ?

I can only go by your words, so if you want to say something different, then do so.

Edited June 1, 2007 by Matus1976

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

What are you talking about? You asked me a question and I answered you. You asked where you did something and I showed you. Now you want to play games?

Not interested. If you have any real ideas to talk about, I might join in later. I will check in from time to time.

Michael

[Matus1976]

Michael,

What are you talking about? You asked me a question and I answered you. You asked where you did something and I showed you. Now you want to play games?

Not interested. If you have any real ideas to talk about, I might join in later. I will check in from time to time.

Michael

Michael, what is it YOU are talking about?

Initially, you wrote "Just because a person perceives a fact, that does not mean that he values it"

To which I responded "When did i ever say that acknowledgeing death exists means anyone values it?"

to which you responded

Here, as I already quoted:

QUOTE(Matus1976 @ May 29 2007, 12:29 PM) *

My ultimate purpose is a sincere discussion and developing of ideas, but I admit that in this particular topic, you are going to be hard pressed to talk me into thinking that death is ultimately, for some reason, a good thing.

A good thing is a normative abstraction (value).

You did not point out where I said that acknowledging death exists means someone finds value in it. I did not say that, I never said that, I never said anything remotely like that. A point I emphasized when I said:

"Do you not see the distinction between saying "Things Die" and "Things ought to WANT to DIE" ?"

See for example

"the fact that life will end one day—and this fact alone—that imbues their life with vitality and meaning"

This is a quote which is EXPLICITLY STATING that there is some value to be found in death, that death ads a value to life, that it 'imbues life with vitality and meaning' that death is, ultimately A GOOD THING. That is a value judgement.

Compare these two statements.

"the fact that life will end one day"

"the fact that life will end one day—that imbues their life with vitality and meaning"

One is a fact, the other is an implicated value judgement.

Lets try some others

"[there is always] the possibility of losing [life]." <-- FACT

"the possibility of losing [life]...does create value <-- Value Judgement

"[death is an] eventual inevitability" <-- FACT

"The eventual inevitability of death does indeed make life precious" <-- Value Judgement.

I do not know how simpler I can make it. These statements are not OBSERVATIONS about the FACT of death, like the color of an apple or the smell of a flower are facts. The are value judgements, the red color of the apple is GOOD, not an apple is RED. Or, The fact that an Apple is red is what gives it value.

NEVER, NOT ONCE, NOT EVEN REMOTELY, have I ever said that acknowledgeing death EXISTS means someone finds value in it, instead of I have explicitly quoted every opinion here where people EXLPICITY FIND VALUE *IN DEATH* the assert it is *A GOOD THING*

I am not 'playing games', you are making no sense, you are attacking some position I have never stated. Please state, explicitly, where I said or indicating that acknowledging that exists means someone finds value in it?

When I said (which is what you keep referring to)

"you are going to be hard pressed to talk me into thinking that death is ultimately, for some reason, a good thing."

I DID NOT say

"you are going to be hard pressed to talk me into thinking that death exists"

I DID say

"[you will not convince me] death is ultimately, for some reason, a good thing"

One is acknowledging that death exists, THE OTHER is stating that death is GOOD

So, I say again, What are you talking about?