Active Users:346 Time:12/07/2025 02:46:37 AM
I haven't read Harry Potter so I'll take your word for it Isaac Send a noteboard - 26/02/2013 03:13:55 PM

View original postAs though aging and dying is a shameful thing. We must do anything and everything to avoid that fate, eh? In all seriousness, how long we can live is not the relevant question. The relevant question is, how long can we live well? I rather die at 80, with my full faculties, than die at 120, being fed and taken care of for 10+ miserable years.

There's nothing shameful about aging and dying any more than there's something shameful about being paralyzed or blinded, I've no desire to be either though. There's a big difference between recognizing a handicap doesn't fundamentally diminish a person and entering the delusional rationalization mode of assuming being blind or deaf is not undesirable. Same I'd rather be old than dead but I'd even rather be a hundred and still able to enjoy a good book and play tennis, there's nothing 'shameful' about the first two options but the third is preferable to me. Emphasis there, 'to me', I'd never dictate that to another but I also don't see anything shameful, sinister or crazy about wanting a much longer duration of healthy life than Mother Nature offered me, she's a crazy homicidal bitch who's opinion we ignore every time we vaccinate someone.

I don't object if you want to die at 80 with your mind if the alternative is to lose your mind at 80 and live another 40 years, I'd opt for the same. But that whole line of reasoning revolves around a specific scenario for longevity that is totally moot for other scenarios. If the 'magical pill' let you live in total mental and physical vigor till you were 100 then fall over dead your whole argument would be inapplicable, same if tech just lets us keep pushing things back so that a person who would be frail at 80 and dead at 90 now would be frail at 90 and dead at 100, then I don't see a downside of the sort you envision. We don't know what form such longevity methods might take so discussion of the morality of them is decidedly premature especially when one insists on taking the nightmare scenario and using that as the basis for determining the morality of the entire concept.

I swear it is like some people have Stockholm Syndrome with the Grim Reaper.

I never said or implied we should embrace any method that simply kept your heart beating one more year regardless of quality of life. I'm objecting to the implication that living longer in of itself might be considered immoral.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein

King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Reply to message
Scientists claim 72 is the new 30 - 26/02/2013 03:06:04 AM 916 Views
"New" is a relative term, as its usage here demonstrates. - 26/02/2013 04:31:24 AM 427 Views
Re: "New" is a relative term, as its usage here demonstrates. - 26/02/2013 08:28:58 AM 372 Views
Perhaps quality of life is the basic moral issue here. - 28/02/2013 08:16:48 PM 323 Views
I don't see why it would be immoral, but I can see why it would be undesirable - 26/02/2013 04:59:32 AM 380 Views
Stole my answer . . . - 26/02/2013 01:20:33 PM 311 Views
It comes down to the same thing - 26/02/2013 05:10:14 PM 343 Views
You sound like Voldemort lol - 26/02/2013 01:28:40 PM 421 Views
I haven't read Harry Potter so I'll take your word for it - 26/02/2013 03:13:55 PM 324 Views
Solution: Only live to 110. No miserable last 10 years. *NM* - 26/02/2013 08:18:41 PM 225 Views

Reply to Message