If you consider aging and death in old age as a negative, perhaps you should reconsider your philosophy, instead of chasing immortality.
Why should I reconsider? What about your view do you feel is better than living healthier for longer?
The way I see it, if you take advantage of doctors at all you are already competing against your own ideals.
We have made huge leaps in health such that even if we die at 80, our lives will have been much more healthy and active up until that point.
If I can be healthy and active until 80 and then die at 100, then I will do that. It isn't immortality they are after, it's just more high quality life.
There is nothing graceful, or more respectable, about succumbing to death because it is the social norm at a certain age. I will cling on to life until I can no longer.
Plus ideas can change faster as culture changes.
That said, there may be ways to overcome this and I still think it's worth working on not having to die. Though trying to determine purpose behind existential questions becomes difficult pretty quickly.
Even if we figure it out since sex and having children is core to biological life and the basis for the replicating genetic code that eventually lead to us - not sure how we'd solve that. Guess we also better get working on space colonization for our start trek future.
I'd be interested to know how our species' life span has changed over the past few million years. We live significantly longer than other great apes, that's probably relevant.
What about saving premature babies and babies with congenital diseases?
Either way, life philosophies that would reflect such a claim don't have comment length "arguments" that would be convincing to anyone on any level. Some things do not lend themselves to logic. Some things require more than a few paragraphs and an argument. And sometimes, those things, are best served by parsimony, rather than loquacious debate.
You have made the exact same argument that you are defending, it boils down to "you do not understand my world view, if you understood more maybe you would."
I understand not everything fits in a comment box, but when you choose to participate in a discussion then a one line excerpt of "wisdom" is hardly useful. You cannot just imply someone is wrong and not discuss why. This isn't twitter, there is room to get started.
All I ask is some substance above "Have you considered that you might be wrong?"
Because yes, I have considered that, and I am eager to talk about it.
I don't expect that you'd be nodding agreeably. But I do think one with a bit more perspective might engage in a more productive manner.
All you have done in both your comments is slight the platform and slight myself, adding nothing.
I believe I understand his argument; It would be a waste to spend life chasing immortality, as you would waste the only life you had in search of more of it, thus getting to truly enjoy neither.
But I am still glad there are people chasing it, as it means we get to enjoy more life than if they were not.
The parent comment's sentiment only really makes sense if you yourself are chasing more life, and even then only if you are destined to fail. The last 50 years alone should show us that more quality life is an extremely reasonable goal. Adding nearly 20 years to the average life expectancy, from 60 to 80 for males in Australia for example.
[0] https://carcinisation.com/2014/07/13/an-anti-deathist-f-a-q/...
also, your argument, red herring. the commenter didn't say, let's all be happy that old age is crap. at all. that was you. you said that. why? idk.
Please look at a description of 'red herring' [0] and kindly elaborate how it applies to my response.
"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue."
And, this is exactly why I keep "losing my password" for my HN account, so that I have to take a break from participating. I didn't need to look to Wikipedia know what a Red Herring is. And it's a waste of my time spelling it out for others when they could figure it out themselves.
So, it works like this:
You said: "If you believe getting old, and sick, and miserable, and then dying, is good or natural or the way it is supposed to be, then I respectfully disagree with you."
But the person you were replying to said:"If you consider aging and death in old age as a negative, perhaps you should reconsider your philosophy, instead of chasing immortality."
their comment.. If P, perhaps Q. P = "you consider aging and death in old age as a negative" Q = "you should reconsider your philosophy" & "[not] chasing immortality"
and your comment... "If P, then Q." P = "you believe getting old, and sick, and miserable, and then dying, is good or natural or the way it is supposed to be" Q = "I respectfully disagree with you"
so, the "P"s are at issue, as both "Q"s can roughly be translated into, "no", "false"
P[1] = "you consider aging and death in old age as a negative" compared to... P[2] = "you believe getting old, and sick, and miserable, and then dying, is good or natural or the way it is supposed to be"
Not the same.
The original comment simply said, it's not necessarily bad. You said, "you're" arguing it is good, or natural, or the way it's supposed to be.
Again, red herring: "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue."
You're misstatement of the original comment so distorts the issue that we're now arguing about whether "death is natural and inevitable" or "death is good". That is not what the original issue was. So, to reply to your comment, is to be distracted from a relevant or important issue. One would have been misled to go down that path.
logic 101. but hey, you have more karma points than me. so, what does logic really have against that.
I think it has been a good thing so far. Considering who tends to get access to new things first the ones that would still be living would most likely not be the nicest men and women of all times but rather the greediest.
I don't understand this popular craving of immortality. If you look at the current society and add immortality, you just get horrific dystopian future, where by the way majority of the world is still mortal just enslaved by power-hungry immortal overlords.
Right now however sadistic regimes are, we still know that Stalins/Kim Jong Uns of the day will die and there is at least hope.
In currently(!) non-sadistic regimes we have inequality issue where richer just get richer and poor get poorer, but at least money can't be taken to the grave, how is it good to eliminate the grave?
And the reasons people usually give for immortality are either outright egotistical "I don't want to die" or a bit veiled "my grandpa/mother/Steve Jobs was a golden person, I wish they still were around".
Well, kudos to him/her, but I take your dead grandpa over suffering of the millions, thanks.
The same for your fear of death, deal with it.
There are some nuances though:
1. We definitely should work on non-suffering in old ages.
2. This grim outlook applies only if there is no other relevant technological revolution happening at the same time. For instance, if we have free nano-machines making everything out of thin air, hierarchy of the society will already alter enough as to allow immortality being thrown into the mix.
It may take 1000 years to make people who can live 10,000 years, and in the interm I doubt we can imagine the social and economic changes that will happen as people progressively live longer.
Take the current world, and allow everyone to live till they are 120 instead of dying in their 70s on average. Is it such a horrible thing?