To Be or Not to Be

[Marat]

I remember one Spring seeing some immature dead birds in a nest on my balcony, and I realized that they must have struggled to survive and died during the Winter. This set me thinking that this is the essential rule of life: Species will always try to bring as many creatures as possible into existence, so there will always be a harsh dividing line between the ambition of the species to propagate and the resistance of the environment to that propagation. The result of this conflict is that terrible suffering is a natural implication of existence, since no species will ever voluntarily contract within parameters short of that boundary of suffering, but will instead have to be limited by a painful butting up against that boundary. Humans face the same fate, since their ambition will always extend beyond what their circumstances will permit them to have, so reality will always painfully limit what they feel they need. So the poignant story of the mother bird struggling to keep her offspring alive through the Winter and ultimately failing in the hideous death by starvation of her brood becomes universal.

 

While it is true that many human lives seem to sail past many of the worst terrors, everyone most fears death and no one can escape that last, final horror. But given the very broad ambit of human imagination, anticipation, and awareness, everything awful is always present to our minds in the background. Martin Heidegger said once that the hasty way most people drink a cup of coffee already shows that they are at some level aware of death. Since good feelings are associated with successes which no longer require our attention, our minds tend to move on from them quickly and to concentrate on bad things, so the bad is magnified in our experience even beyond its actual magnitude. The actual occurrence of something bad often takes only a very short time, but the anticipation of it or the remembrance of it augments it enormously, again making life feel much worse than the objective dimension of misfortune requires -- yet still, we can't avoid those unpleasant anticpations, regrets, and memories.

 

Doesn't it seem to be the natural conclusion from all of this that it would be better just to avoid the entire adventure if possible? Even if things turn out well, negative feelings about evils which have not (yet) materialized will still spoil things; and if things do turn out badly, they can be horrible beyond imagining. And the bad will naturally statistically predominate over the good, given that we are organized entities in an entropic world.

 

I recognize that mine is the minority viewpoint, and I am puzzled why more people can't be persuaded to agree with it. But I certainly respect everyone who is willing to consider these questions rather than just lose his way in a world of trivial things.

[amanda more]

I remember one Spring seeing some immature dead birds in a nest on my balcony, and I realized that they must have struggled to survive and died during the Winter. This set me thinking that this is the essential rule of life: Species will always try to bring as many creatures as possible into existence, so there will always be a harsh dividing line between the ambition of the species to propagate and the resistance of the environment to that propagation. The result of this conflict is that terrible suffering is a natural implication of existence, since no species will ever voluntarily contract within parameters short of that boundary of suffering, but will instead have to be limited by a painful butting up against that boundary. Humans face the same fate, since their ambition will always extend beyond what their circumstances will permit them to have, so reality will always painfully limit what they feel they need. So the poignant story of the mother bird struggling to keep her offspring alive through the Winter and ultimately failing in the hideous death by starvation of her brood becomes universal.

 

While it is true that many human lives seem to sail past many of the worst terrors, everyone most fears death and no one can escape that last, final horror. But given the very broad ambit of human imagination, anticipation, and awareness, everything awful is always present to our minds in the background. Martin Heidegger said once that the hasty way most people drink a cup of coffee already shows that they are at some level aware of death. Since good feelings are associated with successes which no longer require our attention, our minds tend to move on from them quickly and to concentrate on bad things, so the bad is magnified in our experience even beyond its actual magnitude. The actual occurrence of something bad often takes only a very short time, but the anticipation of it or the remembrance of it augments it enormously, again making life feel much worse than the objective dimension of misfortune requires -- yet still, we can't avoid those unpleasant anticpations, regrets, and memories.

 

Doesn't it seem to be the natural conclusion from all of this that it would be better just to avoid the entire adventure if possible? Even if things turn out well, negative feelings about evils which have not (yet) materialized will still spoil things; and if things do turn out badly, they can be horrible beyond imagining. And the bad will naturally statistically predominate over the good, given that we are organized entities in an entropic world.

 

I recognize that mine is the minority viewpoint, and I am puzzled why more people can't be persuaded to agree with it. But I certainly respect everyone who is willing to consider these questions rather than just lose his way in a world of trivial things.

 

 

Ah,Marat my sister is a doctor. A prescription is neither a philosophical treatise or in any way even a well reasoned argument. It is a mechanic ordering up some brake pads. May decide then to replace the spring.

 

As sad as it is that car will end its days.

 

The half empty/half full argument works. Submit yourself to an analysis of your Dopamine and Seratonin systems (ah yes well we may not be quite there yet) and suddenly logic evaporates.

 

I just had someone posit that he was a computer and everyone should be. So, "When someone has the part of his brain regarding emotion damaged he just wants to sit. " I said. Why do you logically get up in the morning? Because you feel like it. Why do you logically brush your teeth- because you feel like it. As much as I adore math, logic must yield to a kind of philosophy at least. We are not computers.

 

It is so great they have this term now PTSD but for health professionals, many used to call it burnout. Allthough aren't warzones and ER's rather similar?

 

And well I was premed for two years and if I had a quarter for everytime I said "I am glad I'm not a doctor"

 

 

Surely you were the kind of kid that understood that every day was a kind of denial.

 

I always wondered how authors from New York and California coauthor. The book I am considering writing (generally I need to get a flu for nine days to write one) has this working title. Buzzkill "Why We Avoid Reality At All Costs" But I am still trying to answer the question. The original direction was to do something about the way scientists, engineers etc. are in a separate camp from the everyone else. The other group includes politicians and journalists. This is just too advanced and technological a society with almost every decision having a huge scientific component to be led by such ignorance. I tire of asking us to understand them. I want them up to speed to understand the elementary school version of us.

 

I know someone who knows a tutor of a famous person. Now you heard it here first. It isn't like any of the handlers would let her contribute. Shhhh. Brittany Spears is good in math.

 

So I wonder instead of my own feverish attempt (literally) to write, I might envision a group of ultra short essays by contributors. I just had this discussion with an astrophysicist where he told his class that science is the asking of how not of why. I let him know it was his experimental physicist bent. I didn't insult him further by telling him that I consider science as a tool much like one of an assortment of wrenches that I might use or not. The questions I will always ask are why?

 

Using an economic argument from another post health cannot be done offshore. What underlying economics, logical difference is there between a person like Howard Hughes holding up in a hotel or a person in an ICU? Both are creating jobs and adding to the economy. I knew 20 year olds that had to be as high and disconnected as many in hospital beds. If one has ever felt anger at the morning alarm then getting to sleep in may have a different perspective. As bad a side effect as modern medicine has created with these issues there are some really good drugs.

 

A line segment can be divided into small segments and then smaller still. There are an infinite number of line segments in a segment. Watching water boil may not only seem like an eternity but actually be one in those moments. Hard to believe when one is so active and vibrant but it may not be so bad to exist at that level for a certain number of albeit externally circumscribed moments.

 

So instead of being a God one is relegated to a concierge. Even here the big picture might be that with all the costs here someone runs the cost benefit and decides to develop treatments for the disease. Have you ever met Dr. Bird? He seems fine with having invented the respirator. If you ask for an invite and fly out to Idaho, he might be better able to explain himself. Or not. He is 89 and very busy.

 

So how about it? This is a very short popular vernacular style book and certainly do it anonymously. I can program better than write- but I just enjoy sailing along knocking out these things so am totally cool that I'm a hack.

 

Although we both know you would be a poor second to Brittany Spears.

[Marqq]

(...)

The practical point of these thoughts would be to lead people to stop having children so that at least this misfortune would not continue indefinitely, even though we who already live are trapped in it. But whenever I haved discussed this idea to people considering having children, they just look at me as though I have two heads, or, more accurately, as though I have lost my head. I am constantly puzzled that no one seems able to understand all this.

OK, I'm not sure how you don't see that, for the majority of humanity, "Stop having children" = "Stop having sex". Even if you could convince people that life was so horrible that creating new life was the most heinous cruelty imaginable, they'd just (quite automatically, in the US) counter with the fact that making babies is the one thing that makes life bearable! Well, that or they'd just look at you like you had two heads... To put it simply, though, it's extremely improbable that anything could convince people to even cut back on procreation in a significant way. Even with the criminalization of fertility, children would be born somehow, somewhere.

 

(...)

Doesn't it seem to be the natural conclusion from all of this that it would be better just to avoid the entire adventure if possible? Even if things turn out well, negative feelings about evils which have not (yet) materialized will still spoil things; and if things do turn out badly, they can be horrible beyond imagining. And the bad will naturally statistically predominate over the good, given that we are organized entities in an entropic world.

(...)

Feelings are highly variable from person to person due to perspective, as mentioned by Hari. Also, as mentioned by Tony, many lives are perfectly livable and overall good experiences.

 

However, though they appear the minority, some lives are torturous traps of despair. A person should have the choice of whether or not to end it oneself. As it stands in America, the desire to die, by itself, classifies a person as mentally ill, and therefore unfit to decide their fate. For these people, I agree, there should be information available on simpler ways, or maybe even a government aid program, to end one's life. The whole idea, though, is taboo in nearly every religion, and, considering most of the world is religious, a very difficult subject to breach in any group. Politically speaking, voting for any legislation allowing for suicide would be political suicide. Ethics is not a primary concern in our society, despite so many claims to such. Appeasement of the ignorant, selfish and whiny majority is all we can reasonably expect from today's leaders.

[amanda more]

oneself. As it stands in America, the desire to die, by itself, classifies a person as mentally ill, and therefore unfit to decide their fate. For these people, I agree, there should be information available on simpler ways, or maybe even a government aid program, to end one's life. The whole idea, though, is taboo in nearly every religion, and, considering most of the world is religious, a very difficult subject to breach in any group. Politically speaking, voting for any legislation allowing for suicide would be political suicide. Ethics is not a primary concern in our society, despite so many claims to such. Appeasement of the ignorant, selfish and whiny majority is all we can reasonably expect from today's leaders.

 

The truth is that most people who convince themselves they are reasoning in a logical fashion about this have- guess what? A brain with a deficit in neurotransmitters. The intense research has I suppose created some level of cognitive dissonance that goes against a certain amount of male centered self determinism. It is really a kind of narcissism to believe that control is to be worshiped? It also shows a bit of immaturity. People who believe they are being logical about this then turn out to hold polar opposite views regarding other things. They couch their personal knee jerk reactions with this kind of rhetoric. Medical expenditures are nontrivial. Costs are not unimportant but if this obsessively targets your thinking then consider other spending.

 

Tell me in an exacting deliberate fashion all the ways a glass is half empty. Convince others. You have lied. No matter how logical you consider yourself.

 

Stockbrokers love to get a hold of doctors. Just because one is brilliant in one field it doesn't mean you cannot be a sucker in everything else. In fact you will have a chance to be blinded by your past success.

 

Don't males hate it when females say something out of left field? So here goes it. I asked a philosophy professor this question once. Instead of stepping through all those freaking terms they have let's use an example. It all comes down to pondering something seemingly nonsensical like this: "Is it OK to go to the moon for the view?"

 

 

 

[Marqq]

The truth is that most people who convince themselves they are reasoning in a logical fashion about this have- guess what? A brain with a deficit in neurotransmitters. The intense research has I suppose created some level of cognitive dissonance that goes against a certain amount of male centered self determinism. It is really a kind of narcissism to believe that control is to be worshiped? It also shows a bit of immaturity. People who believe they are being logical about this then turn out to hold polar opposite views regarding other things. They couch their personal knee jerk reactions with this kind of rhetoric. Medical expenditures are nontrivial. Costs are not unimportant but if this obsessively targets your thinking then consider other spending.

 

Tell me in an exacting deliberate fashion all the ways a glass is half empty. Convince others. You have lied. No matter how logical you consider yourself.

 

Stockbrokers love to get a hold of doctors. Just because one is brilliant in one field it doesn't mean you cannot be a sucker in everything else. In fact you will have a chance to be blinded by your past success.

 

Don't males hate it when females say something out of left field? So here goes it. I asked a philosophy professor this question once. Instead of stepping through all those freaking terms they have let's use an example. It all comes down to pondering something seemingly nonsensical like this: "Is it OK to go to the moon for the view?"

(underlines added)

 

The truth is that most people who argue the pro-life side of a suicide debate are religious folks who believe hell (or its equivalent) awaits anyone who commits suicide. They're also the sort of people whose lives are satisfying overall, and are deluded enough to think that every other person has similar circumstances. Now I know that denying an argument based on its presenter is a fallacy, but here, I only mean to deny the unspoken premises: That all lives are more good than bad; That suicide leads to even greater suffering for the one committing it. I do have to admit that, in many cases of suicidal thoughts and actions, the motivation lies in a childish knee-jerk-like pouting brought about with little more than anecdotal suffering. Such instances could be disqualified with relative ease; the validity of logical no-hope-of-improvement conclusions could be tested. But there are instances where a person would truly be better off dead, and help in that situation should be available.

 

This is not an argument of pessimism vs. optimism.

 

Males do hate it when women have a point that's valid.....thanks for hiding it so well...but just to rile us, could you try to be more clear with the statements I didn't underline?

[amanda more]

(underlines added)

 

The truth is that most people who argue the pro-life side of a suicide debate are religious folks who believe hell (or its equivalent) awaits anyone who commits suicide. They're also the sort of people whose lives are satisfying overall, and are deluded enough to think that every other person has similar circumstances. Now I know that denying an argument based on its presenter is a fallacy, but here, I only mean to deny the unspoken premises: That all lives are more good than bad; That suicide leads to even greater suffering for the one committing it. I do have to admit that, in many cases of suicidal thoughts and actions, the motivation lies in a childish knee-jerk-like pouting brought about with little more than anecdotal suffering. Such instances could be disqualified with relative ease; the validity of logical no-hope-of-improvement conclusions could be tested. But there are instances where a person would truly be better off dead, and help in that situation should be available.

 

This is not an argument of pessimism vs. optimism.

 

Males do hate it when women have a point that's valid.....thanks for hiding it so well...but just to rile us, could you try to be more clear with the statements I didn't underline?

It is a double bind. They hate to be shown the fallacy of their logic. They hate it when something nonsensical like emotion is brought in. But alas as logical as a computer is, a human isn't. And if a human doesn't at least mention art, beauty and emotion then it is a cold argument.

 

Also a fallacious one. So in a horrible economic collapse all the smart logical ones do themselves in while the sainted fanatics sail along. That would seem to be eminently logical to you?

[padren]

This is an interesting topic, and seems a little bit difficult to jump into but I'll try:

 

First, I think there are some situations where a person may be "better off dead" and offering suicide as an option is the best thing we can do for them if we only look at "their experience of living" and avoid the whole theistic side of the discussion.

 

As for the "preempting the experience of potential suffering through suicide" concept, I really have to disagree. We could nuke the planet up one side and down the other, and for all we know the dust will blow around and the mud will sit in the sun, and those damned amino acids will get all uppity again and - before you know it - there's some new sod looking at the night sky wondering where it all went wrong.

 

 

The course of events unfolding naturally in this Universe led to our current predicament of consciousness and returning to an non-conscious state only sets the stage for that to happen all over again.

 

 

 

While it's not a definitive safeguard (nothing can be, considering how brutal this planet really is) I am a proponent of the Buddhist adage about not "suffering over your suffering" and try to keep perspective that a lot of what is painful is necessary to refine myself.

One of my favorite examples goes along the lines of friends who are so self-critical they make themselves miserable and feel worthless at times. Yet, it's always the best people who do that - precisely because it is critical introspection with strong emotional catalysts that makes a person better than they were before. People who don't care about whether they are "good or not" never feel the negative stimulus that forces introspection and refinement, and thus never better themselves in those ways.

 

Of course, there are much worse forms of suffering than that, and it's basically the luck of the draw if we'll ever face them but to avoid the risk by dying seems to at best put the issue off for a few billion years. Maybe it's not "us" but someone will get stuck with the problem, even all life on the planet was erased right now.

 

 

Personally, when I think about where we were 200,000 years ago, 20,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 500 years ago, 100 years go, and 50 years go - I have to say this whole "being conscious animals thing" has worked out very well in reducing the amount of suffering we experience as a species. Despite the fact that the general approach puts our own individual consciousness at risk of potentially horrific suffering, the fact we all do it instead of just "opting out early" does help mitigate the total risk of extreme suffering.

We also can't really predict what will happen in the next 50 years, or 100 years... or 200,000 years - maybe a technological singularity will end up generating solutions we cannot even currently imagine.

 

As far as I know, the only thing I can do is what little I can to help us get there faster, and help mitigate the suffering we all experience along the way.