Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

KeepItASecretok t1_ixgdzx3 wrote

I never understood this almost cult like obsession with accepting death or old age for some people.

Of course we don't currently have the ability to entirely reverse aging in humans, but for the first time it is within our reach and people cling to it like it's a tradition.

"We've always died so we must always continue to die."

Or some people who think they are taking a morally righteous position by wanting to die?

Even if we can't fully be "immortal" per say, at least we can strive to make life into old age much more functional and enjoyable.

111

HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_ixgxnh1 wrote

I think those religious and mythological traditions will dissipate when aging is cured, by the time we abandon the monkey suit altogether those ways of thinking will certainly be extinct. A lot of it is just Stockholm Syndrome.

26

Education-Sea t1_ixh22o2 wrote

"The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living"- KM

12

HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_ixh2v7w wrote

Yeah, I think half of it is tradition and the other half is a coping mechanism, humans don’t live a long time, so they need myth, religion, spirituality and philosophy to explain their short finite lifespan. Half of the reason these spiritual traditions exist is because of the sting of death, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism all try to ease the reality of coping with permanent loss.

Nobody treats death like they treat a morning cup or coffee or the last dump they took. It’s been a an Achilles Heel in that losing people around us needs an explanation (I don’t think it does TBH). I think soon both Ageism and Deathism will be obsolete.

10

div414 t1_ixhe8wu wrote

That is wishful thinking.

−3

HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_ixhjlfh wrote

It’s not going to happen overnight, but it’ll lessen more and more over time.

7

ThatOneGuy1294 t1_ixh5peh wrote

> Or some people who think they are taking a morally righteous position by wanting to die?

Well a non-insignificant portion of the planet's population is literally waiting for the world to end so the chosen ones get to ascend to heaven, so that's definitely a factor for a lot of people.

21

Cult_of_Chad t1_ixo7bc7 wrote

The misanthropic ecofascists that think the universe would be better off without us are just as bad, and a lot more prevalent on Reddit.

3

2Punx2Furious t1_ixhfhxy wrote

> cult like obsession with accepting death or old age for some people

https://hpluspedia.org/wiki/Deathism

It's basically a way to cope.

10

HongoMushroomMan t1_ixipsix wrote

Its all one massive giant coping mechanism in my opinion. Some start earlier than others. I've been cursed to have spent a portion of my brain cycles on the cold hard truth that death is the end since I was 14. Ate some mushrooms at way too young of an age and something in my mind just... clicked. I remember the second it happened. I woke up, sober and just proceeded to live post-realization. That an actual cessation of existence was coming, and that its not to be spoken or talked about around normal people.

I'd imagine most average people only really start getting into that internal realization in their 50s/60s/70s when they feel their body literally beginning that cycle of disrepair that leads to inevitable failure. Its for sure the #1 reason religion has maintained such an iron-fisted hold over mankind.. People simple can't have "the realization" and not wrap it around some form of hope or belief that its really not the end.

But just like that bug you smashed or the roadkill squirrel you saw on the highway, those life forces were extinguished and so too will yours. Another thought exercise I do is reflect on how we view humans in antiquity. How we tend to look down upon them more or less because we are fortunate to live in the modern world and they are not. The terrible thing in my mind is (finally back to this topic) is that WE are the ones that either already are or will be thought of in a different age as the unlucky ones to have come before. We are living in antiquity as I type this. With our handheld computers walking around thinking we are the future. We're not the future, we are the ancient past, the dust in the ground.

We will cure forever consciousness one day, and there will be a massive grieving period for our race when it dawns on everyone, that everyone who had the misfortune to die before eternal consciousness was enabled was more or less a sacrifice. We continue to shoot our genes like a marathon baton into the next fleshbag that lasts about 80 years so that we can incrementally get closer to that salvation. Its a shitty thought, to be taken out of existence before all knowledge and mysteries are made available forever to those future humans.

6

Stulam0g t1_ixisn3e wrote

There's no science that says there will be a "forever". Do you think that science will solve that, and in what way is that belief different from religion? Do you not perceive this as a coping mechanism to avoid the reality of death?

1

HongoMushroomMan t1_ixiuuob wrote

Well, sure. Its just a vastly superior coping mechanism to the cessation of being. I'd say 1,000 years, 10,000 years, 10 million years, a billion years. All would be drastically better.

3

Stulam0g t1_ixixuo6 wrote

Maybe, but even a billion billion years is nothing in the face of the eternity of non existence. Not trying to dunk on you or anything btw, very much in agreement with you, I'm tryin to dodge that fate for as long as possible lmao

3

HongoMushroomMan t1_ixiz5ne wrote

Lol no I get it. It's something important to remember that forever basically can't exist. Heat death and such. However, I suppose if one could reposition oneself to a different universe on a different timescale you could postpone it more or less forever by always moving to a new universe. Probably in the next 20 years amirite?

4

SpiritedSort672 OP t1_ixj278r wrote

>It's something important to remember that forever basically can't exist. Heat death and such.

Even if the heat death of the universe has a solution, which it may have (who knows?), living forever is by definition impossible, since it's never forever.

1

Stulam0g t1_ixjv1t2 wrote

Hopefully less. Honestly I'll take tech that can change me into a person that's chill with facing an eternity of nothing. Take what I can get. Who knows tho, when we're smashing neutron stars together in a couple years, maybe we can break something the right way around.

1

Original_Ad_1103 t1_ixkhifu wrote

Heat death? As we get a better understanding of the universe, each new step takes more and more resources. 150 years ago a single physicist or astronomer could on their own still make a world-changing discovery. Now, most major research is done by large groups working together. In the case of particle physics, the research involves literally the largest machines any humans have ever built. And the discoveries are getting smaller. Once one has the basic idea of evolution and DNA, and how RNA functions, in some sense what remains in biology, while quite interesting, just aren't as large or as amazing questions, even if their answers may have a lot of important applications and will continue to help us understand life. And one sees some of this issue also in where practical engineering has gone with science also- between 1885 and 1910 you have the first practical cars, the first radio and the first airplanes. People often like to say were in the midst of a technological revolution, but the turn of that century was far closer to that. Now, while we still have game-changing technologies, they aren't coming as fast. We may be moving into a long plateau.

We absolutely cannot decrease the entropy of a closed system. It's (almost) physically impossible. But it doesn't seem implausible that future engineers might be able to build machines that are efficient enough to approximate processes with zero net entropy increase. Perhaps they could get close enough for all intents and purposes? That's science. Heat death of the universe is what matches the data we have at this moment the best. We might get new data tomorrow.

1

TheHamsterSandwich t1_ixxicpp wrote

We either conquer heat death or leave the universe for a new one. Those huge swaths of time will give us a viable solution, if we even assume heat death is the ultimate fate of the universe.

1

Verzingetorix t1_ixka91d wrote

People are not stupid. Once a proof-of-concept is demonstrated and an achievable goal for humans is available all we have are pipe dreams. Regardless of how scientifically sound those dreams might be.

There has been ZERO robust rejuvenation of a naturally-aged, complex animal. There's nothing for the general public to buy into. A lot of us are optimistic, engaged and informed about some cutting edge ideas and niche advances. But at the end of the day, there's nothing tangible to sell the idea.

4

PandaCommando69 t1_ixl6yxw wrote

There has been rejuvenation of mice. Paper coming out soon. Here's video about it (NBC News) https://youtu.be/DPARs7mL_7Q

2

Verzingetorix t1_ixll3zv wrote

Artificially degrading the mice DNA and then inducing DNA repair is not rejuvenation.

They would have to apply their methodology to genetically diverse, elderly mice to demonstrate robust rejuvenation.

Reversing and artificially induced phenotype that resembles aging us a nice lab trick that has been done before.

3

Devanismyname t1_ixkbv5b wrote

How do you not understand it when you literally just explained it? For the entirety of human existence, including right now and the foreseeable future, people have died and there was nothing we could do about it. Now, over the horizon, there is the possibility scientists could fix aging and make people live longer. But most people on earth aren't really familiar with this kind of futuristic tech and still view aging and dying as an inevitable part of life. Its not cult like acceptance, its just acceptance of the reality of being alive. If anything, people on this sub are more cult like because they believe with out doubt that we will be immortal.

3

PandaCommando69 t1_ixl6knl wrote

We (humans) will be (functionally) immortal. Why not us? Someone has to be the first generation. I think we will be.

1

Devanismyname t1_ixmnwao wrote

The odds of it happening are getting worse as the weeks pass. Scientifically, we are closer than ever. But economically, socially, and politically human civilization is headed for some tough times. Deglobalization is happening at lightening speed. That means our supply chains break down, meaning our food, electronics, vehicles and other goods go up in price or become unavailable. That means more and more countries stop manufacturing goods for the west and the overall standard of living on earth drops dramatically. That means there are less and less civilized countries for smart people to come from and continue to advance science because more and more have fallen to starvation and savage wars with one another as countries and alliances fracture and break apart due to starvation and collapse. We are in the beginning of this horrible period of time. The world is breaking apart, loyalties are shifting, breaking, or becoming stronger. This could result in a prolonged period of lower and lower standards of living and stagnation in science and innovation.

1

PandaCommando69 t1_ixmr5lu wrote

I agree with you that we are undergoing a de globalization, and that it is having, and will have, many negative effects around the world. From the available data I have been able to examine, I believe that the United States (& Canada and Mexico) is best positioned in the world (integrated domestic economy, plentiful fertile land, and huge quantities raw materials) to ride out the coming storm. Note: If anybody would like someone to blame, feel free to point your fingers directly at China and Russia. If they just could have stopped themselves from being belligerents (and thieves, particularly in the case of China), then we wouldn't have to be doing all this decoupling. Their shortsightedness is going to damn a lot of people around the world (look at the growing food crisis because of the war in Ukraine).

1

CrimsonAndGrover t1_ixjw6hy wrote

"Scientifically speaking, traditions are an idiot thing."

-Rick Sanchez

1

cunnyvore t1_ixhemfk wrote

There’s no impersonal way to process death, so anyone who tries to reason based on logic or morals is emotionally distancing in some way, from fear or ignorance. Inevitable death seems like a fair thing in some ways, not only it’s an equalizer but also makes the process less lonely. Your loved ones and those you admire have or will have gone through it, and everyone dies alone but if we all end up in one place, it can’t be that bad, can it?

If the immortality becomes a thing, death will only get scarier, so people will be invested in inevitability of it for long time.

−2

Tocwa t1_ixiqfgc wrote

Even ye mighty, thou famous, all these towering peeps we look up to and admire…they share one absolute with YOU… the guarantee of ☠️

0

SpiritedSort672 OP t1_ixg37my wrote

I've always been disappointed in Lex Fridman for his prominent pro-death stance, so I'm shocked to see that his dad is actually pro-immortality. It's funny cause it's usually the other way around. This shows us that anyone can fall for the pro-death fallacies.

48

blueSGL t1_ixhp92c wrote

I think some of his worst takes are that he fetishises death, believes that AIs/robots need to be programmed to 'feel' and to 'fear death' as a way to truly capture the essence of living and is the breakthrough that is needed for true AGI

I honestly don't want AIs with a 'survive at any cost' drive to them, or for that matter the ability to feel pain.
This gets back to the Westworld season 1 problem (I don't care about any other seasons) Why would you want to encourage and imbue the automatons who are there for humanity to live out their most wildest fantasies with sentience when a simulacrum would be more than good enough.
Or as Preston Jacobs so eloquently put it, if you are designing a toilet why would you give it the ability to taste.

17

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixi18z1 wrote

> believes that AIs/robots need to be programmed to 'feel' and to 'fear death' as a way to truly capture the essence of living and is the breakthrough that is needed for true AGI

I always hated that shit in Bicentennial Man. People keep going on about how uplifting the story and later the movie were, but it always just seemed creepy AF to me.

6

notgtax1 t1_ixgw7qm wrote

Maybe when Lex is a little older…

12

DirtzMaGertz t1_ixim9dd wrote

Kind of makes the jokes that Lex is a sentient robot funnier.

Lex having a different opinion isn't a fallacy though. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it a fallacy.

2

SpiritedSort672 OP t1_ixiqxxp wrote

>Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it a fallacy

Of course not. I didn't say that.

1

DirtzMaGertz t1_ixir9v3 wrote

>This shows us that anyone can fall for the pro-death fallacies.

this you?

3

SpiritedSort672 OP t1_ixitj72 wrote

Yes, I've said Lex's arguments are fallacies, but I have my reasons for it. You said I'm just dismissing them cause I don't agree with them.

1

DirtzMaGertz t1_ixiu2x7 wrote

Calling them a fallacy is about as dismissive as you can be bro.

2

[deleted] t1_ixgc2j5 wrote

Oh sheesh we don’t even know what death is, how are they “fallacies”

−10

red75prime t1_ixggmn4 wrote

We know that there's no going back. It's enough for people who don't care for speculations with no evidence.

21

HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_ixh361g wrote

This, let’s not accept untestable contradictory metaphysical explanations for what death is or what happens after it, it’s just more of the “God of the Gaps” argument. That mentality also leads to apathy and not fixing the problems around us.

I say let’s treat it now, if these people believe the rapture or enlightenment is inevitable anyways, then why not stay alive until it comes?

2

[deleted] t1_ixhp0y2 wrote

[deleted]

−1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixi1qdm wrote

> folks with NDEs

Oh lord.

1

[deleted] t1_ixi5j0c wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixi9nkm wrote

Subjective hallucinations in people teetering on the edge of brain damage from oxygen starvation and other chemical imbalances is not meaningful evidence of anything. File it along with drugs and sensory deprivation nonsense.

6

[deleted] t1_ixiaokq wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixicop4 wrote

It’s the null hypothesis. It is a thing we absolutely know is happening in a dying brain regardless of whether there is ALSO something spiritual going on.

1

[deleted] t1_ixid2mg wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixigccr wrote

No, you're wrong, we really do know how the brain reacts to resource starvation. If you want to establish that there is something metaphysical in NDEs you have to eliminate the null hypothesis first, and nobody has done anything vaguely close to that.

1

[deleted] t1_ixihy0d wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixingxi wrote

That's not how science works. That's not how anything works.

0

[deleted] t1_ixinrdw wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixinz8u wrote

Science says you can’t prove anything without evidence. You don’t have any evidence. You just have wishful thinking. That doesn’t mean it’s a fallacy it means it’s not even a testable theory.

1

[deleted] t1_ixiofbz wrote

[deleted]

1

SpiritedSort672 OP t1_ixj3rmp wrote

I'm not claiming to know what happens after death. By "pro-death fallacies" I meant the statements that Lex makes about death being necessary for life to have meaning.

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixipnk4 wrote

I'm just objecting to you using NDEs as evidence.

You prefer "fantasies" then? Unless you're one of Heinlein's "true witnesses" you have to demand some level of support for anything you're going to stand for. Complaining that the word "fallacy" implies there's active proof against something that is basically 100% made up without any basis for considering it any more seriously than the Great Green Akleseizure or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just churlish. You know it's nonsense.

0

[deleted] t1_ixiq6x3 wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixiqkc5 wrote

No straw man. You brought up NDEs as support for your argument. I'm objecting to using NDEs as support for your argument. If you agree that they're not support for your argument after all, we're done.

Then you brought up "we can't argue about it because we don't REALLY know anything". We actually do know quite a lot, so THAT's a total straw man, but whatever. It's still not evidence that NDEs are evidence for anything.

1

[deleted] t1_ixiu2kf wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixiulku wrote

They're not data.

1

[deleted] t1_ixiym6d wrote

[deleted]

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ixiyvcy wrote

Completely unrelated. Even if there is some continuity of memory Beyond Death there is no reason to assume that it is anything but a dead record and has nothing to do with consciousness.

1

HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_ixik6c6 wrote

The burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim though, I’m willing to let science study NDEs or drug trips, but let’s not jump the gun like some people and say they got reality all figured out. Tool has a song about Psychonauts like that, it’s called Rosetta Stoned.

1

SpiritedSort672 OP t1_ixhhxtj wrote

I use "death" as a synonym for "final end of life", and so does Lex. If there is life after death, then that's not death on my book, just a change of scenery.

1

Black_RL t1_ixgslvx wrote

It’s just like Mike Tyson said:

Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.

22

Tocwa t1_ixiqp3h wrote

We saw how well that worked out for the annoying white guy who kept pestering Tyson on that airplane -

✈️🤕🥊

2

ryusan8989 t1_ixhfbnd wrote

One argument that annoys the hell out of me is that death is “natural”. Yes, many organisms die, but we have immortal jellyfish. Their immortality (through metamorphosis) is just as natural as dying. Many times, I comment about the fantastic technological and medical advancements we see on YouTube and someone will comment about how we shouldn’t strive for living indefinitely because it’s not natural, I always comment back “Please do not use antibiotics, Tylenol, antivirals, don’t go to the hospital when you have a medical condition to help cure your disease. It’s natural right?”. They are the biggest hypocrites in the world. What I decide to do with my body is my own business, you cannot tell me what is right and wrong for me if I’m not hurting you or myself.

21

SpiritedSort672 OP t1_ixhh4c1 wrote

And even if there were no immortal organisms, why would it matter? Why not be the first to achieve it?

12

ryusan8989 t1_ixhjc7j wrote

Yes exactly, I work in the trauma ICU. Seeing so many people is really sad. What’s worse is seeing a brain dead patient’s family mourning over their loss. Their cries can be so loud. Death is a big deal. You lose so much when someone dies. First off, you lose your identity and awareness. Your family loses a loved one. Someone full of cherished memories and future plans. Someone with meaning to them. Death needs to be eradicated in my opinion at a persons own choice.

8

Quealdlor t1_ixhhs1q wrote

Good and positive to know. Being pro-mortality and deathist is what I dislike the most in Lex Fridman.

10

nblack88 t1_ixiviel wrote

I'm biased against an age-related death. That aside, the premise of dying at the current mortality rate of 80 years, give or take, versus living forever is a bad one. It's too extreme a juxtaposition to be useful. "Forever" is a catch-all concept that doesn't do what a good question is meant to do:

Keep the questioner focused on addressing the primary concern. In Lex's case the question appears to be: Die at the current natural lifespan, or don't?

A healthy person can always choose to die. A dead person cannot then choose to live. The better the question, the better the answer.

My opinion: Lex's belief that death gives life meaning is premature and romantic. I have a lot of experience with death. I haven't found anything romantic about it. That notion is best left at the distance of fictional representation. I would much rather live a healthy life independent of death mandated by causes that seem preventable, like pathologies related to aging. I want the possibility of existential boredom. If that becomes untenable, I can always choose to die. That's the point: When it comes to death by aging, I am pro-choice.

4

TheHamsterSandwich t1_ixj4zuw wrote

Death is a tragedy. People rationalize tragedies by either romanticizing it or saying "it's not that bad". Once the option presents itself, everyone will want to live forever as long as they have a life they enjoy and their family with them.

6

EddgeLord666 t1_ixi779a wrote

Uh who exactly is Lex Friedman?

3

SpiritedSort672 OP t1_ixi7tgr wrote

Famous podcaster. Really recommend him.

7

TopicRepulsive7936 t1_ixj7w8i wrote

I don't recommend him.

2

SpiritedSort672 OP t1_ixj87s5 wrote

Why not? He brings lots of interesting guests.

4

PandaCommando69 t1_ixl9ubp wrote

I like him, but I also dislike that he platforms douchebags like Jordan Cries A lot McIncel Peterson and Ben Nazi Lite Shapiro.

1

mattex456 t1_ixlvicc wrote

Peterson literally said something along the lines of "if women don't like you, you're the problem, not the women".

On what basis are you associating him with incels?

2

mvfsullivan t1_ixj04fu wrote

Im glad to be part of the first generation to live forever. Its clearly gonna happen. Probably within the next 30 years.

3

The_Real_RM t1_ixh8mje wrote

In our current society death is necessary, the succession of power, wealth and economic systems requires it as these systems have death and the succession of generations as an ingrained feature and depend on it to optimize other processes. Imagine having tenure "for life" in academia or worse, in justice.

As we approach the time when serious life extension becomes possible, society will need to transition to systems that include this feature but maintain coherence and ultimately peace.

I personally predict that this transition will be one of the bloodiest in human history so I'd rather we don't get there in my lifetime, making me pro-death until I'm gone but ultimately pro-immortality for the future.

2

ihopeimnotdoomed t1_ixh5saz wrote

It depends one whether or not we are able to continue moving into the ocean. Moving along the ocean.

1

neo101b t1_ixijy1r wrote

Being immortal would end up being a curse, what is there to do, when everything you can do has been done ?

Eternal boredom would be a thing eventually, it's not going to be as fun as it was at first. Even if it takes aeons.

1

ClothesAdditional896 t1_ixitzc1 wrote

As that may be true, realistically tho, it wouldn’t be eternal boredom, in an eternal universe breads infinite outcomes especially with exploration everything can’t have been done with immortality, but if you get so bored you don’t want to live anymore then I’m sure there’s a way you can opt out humanly

4

Tocwa t1_ixissug wrote

A major problem with immortality is overpopulation. Our planet 🌍 is already straining under the weight of well over 7 Billion Souls, resources are not being fairly allocated amongst all of us and land is at a premium. I feel we should first focus on bringing other spheres within reach; developing interstellar travel, radiation proof shielding, cryonic suspension, etc so as to enable us as a species to spread out through the stars 🌌.. at that point, living forever and having lots of offspring would make sense 🛸🏞

−4

boreddaniel02 t1_ixknm9p wrote

there's plenty of room for more people overpopulation is a myth.

3

PandaCommando69 t1_ixlabnu wrote

Also nobody should die so that some hypothetical future person can breed. I want my personal DNA to survive, not some hypo rando who is owed absolutely nothing by me.

1