Michael Stuart Kelly said:
“Oh, that's easy. All of those quotes fall outside the two categories you state. Everyone single of them. Wanna know why? Simply put each one into context”
Putting those quotes into context, I still don’t see how you can argue they fall outside of those two categories. For instance, you quote Barbara’s comments
(1) "at the end," and "my final thought," so she is aware of the inevitability of death;
(2) "my final thought will be how much I have loved...," which continuation is one hell of an inspiring homage to valuing life (Barbara, you are quite a dame //;-); and
(3) "I will not tell myself that I want to leave this world..." which eloquently states her unwillingness to resign herself - better yet, surrender her will - to death
So, as you specifically state, she is in part 1 aware of her impending demise, (though nothing she said in part one indicates she feels it to be inevitable, i.e. absolutely and completely unavoidable, you have added that) In part 2 she clearly and eloquently illustrates how much she loves her life, and in part 3 she clearly and eloquently states that she is unwilling to resign herself to death. YET she is still ok with dying. YET she still finds it a battle not worth fighting. There is a clear and logical path for people to follow who do not wish to resign themselves so easily to the cessation of their existence, that of cryogenic suspension. Maybe Barbara has all ready signed up for it, I sincerely hope she has, her loss, god forbid it should ever come to be, will be a great loss to the universe. Yet if she hasn’t signed up, for whatever reason a clearly deeply personal decision we must make on our own, then she certainly falls into my later category;
B) something they would prefer to avoid, but are content in doing absolutely nothing to avoid it.
There was a writer I once read that I quite liked, she wrote “Any idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptable hypocrisy”
“I saw nothing in the posts or posters you cited that made me think that any of the them feel otherwise - not even Tibor, who wrote the article you condemn.”
I see in Tibor’s article, he says (which I have all ready quoted)
“a person with a good outlook on life will gradually come to terms with the fact that he or she will die and, while never abandoning the quest for living and, indeed, for thriving, such a person will not protest or concoct fantasies in order to manage the fact of impending death”
Clearly Tibor loves his life and loves living, and would prefer not to die. It is also clear that he is content in not doing much about it. Thus he falls into the second category. Perhaps I am completely misreading Tibor’s article, and in your great wisdom you could enlighten me. Are my suppositions wrong? Does Tibor not actually value his life and love living? I doubt that interpretation, I think it’s a safe bet he does. Well, if he does, but he has ‘come to terms’ with his ‘inevitable demise’ then it is clear that he would probably prefer not to die, but is content in not doing much to try to achieve that goal. Perhaps he thinks there is no tangible mechanism to accomplish that goal, or perhaps he values the wealth he would transfer to his loved ones more than extra years of his own existence, or perhaps he thinks entertaining notions of immortality is nothing more than wishful thinking and flights of fancy. Whatever his reasoning, the effect is clear. He loves his life, but is content in not doing anything to avoid death.
“But since you are hell bent on fabricating enemies you can then destroy with your erudition”
Death is my only enemy here. Perhaps you should consider your statement in regards to yourself. I am here trying to convince people to love their lives and act in accordance with the ideal that their life is their highest value, yet I am scorned and attacked. Who is fabricating enemies? If you want ‘eruditions’ try Robert Malcom’s posts.
“(This particular straw man [me - yours truly] talks, though. He says that you do not have a clue as to what you are arguing about. And... [sigh]... you do so very very much of it...)”
Well this particular person says that you do not have a clue as to what you are arguing about, and *sigh* you do so very very much of it.
“Make up your straw men and women and save the day!”
Speaking of strawmen, Katdaddy said:
Apparently this whole issue of death is very black and white to you. If someone is not at the extreme end of wanting to do scientific experimentation of getting their heads cut off, cryrogenics and stuff, you accuse them of not valuing their life/not wanting to avoid death.
Two words: You're wrong.
Kat, did you read my posts? I never said anything remotely like ‘if you don’t want to get your head cut off, then you don’t value your life’. I said if you do value your life, and do not want to die, it’s an easy, logical and rational way to attempt to continue your life. Almost all the objections that have been made to it have been philosophical defenses of death, or pure emotional reactions, such as yours, to the idea of having your head cut off. But If you think that cryogenic suspension sounds bad then try comparing it with embalming and cremation. And what does it matter what they do with ‘your’ head, you are dead anyway. It’s nobody’s head. It’s a lifeless shell. I believe Lance said he worked at a funeral home, perhaps he could share the embalming or cremation process with us.
“and we would consider cryrogenics in certain instances”
In what instances?
“Futurama is one of the best cartoons on TV, and Vanilla Sky is a cool flick, but please separate fantasy from reality. “
I don’t watch either, so I don’t know your reference. I have made the clearest case for separating fantasy from reality, you yourself are now (or were previously) considering cryogenics as a possible path to pursue, but you remind me to seperate fantasy from reality. Arent you now embracing that fantasy? The fantasy trips taken here are by the people who seek to give life value by dying.
Joe Maurone said:
“If we can prolong our lives indefinately, how do we deal with population issues? Do we continue to reproduce?”
Joe, Thanks for your comments, that is one of the first objections brought up when discussing indefinite life spans. Most people who are familiar with this area of thought would simply retort that there is no population problem now anyway, and there certainly will not be in the future. Consider the available are of the ocean, both as floating platform based artificial land and undersea. But beyond the earth, we have Mars to inhabit, millions of asteroids (each one of which can cover the whole of the earths surface miles deep in nickel and iron) and beyond that plenty of other star systems and entire galaxies. There is no shortage of room.
Mike Mine Malthus - http://www.reason.com/rb/rb072804.shtml and
Defusing the Population bomb - http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-15-99.html
But Robert makes a good point, we already see in post-industrialized nations a serious decline in birth rates, and future population predictions get reduced every year as more scholars realize that people are not just rabbits. If you live indefinitely, I suspect that new birth rates would decrease dramatically, since people could indefinitely delay procreation with no side effects.
But don’t listen to me, Since according to MSK, I have no idea what I am talking about.
Michael F Dickey