About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 10:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mr. Gores: Greetings and thank you for your good words. Death is Wrong has indeed been achieving some unprecedented publicity of late. I had also come across the Slashdot posting and was furthermore pleased to see a very fair and accurate Mashable article that made good use of the interview with me conducted by the article's author, Rebecca Hiscott, as well as a review published just today on the blog “Me and My Kindle”.

 

Mr. Zantonavitch: I also completely agree with your excellent post. It is indeed the case that “death is a moral abomination -- an evil beyond compare. It needs to be rapidly, ruthlessly, and summarily crushed.” This is the attitude of the new abolitionism I described, which could motivate enough people to work to accelerate the scientific and technological progress needed to reverse senescence in time for us.

 

Mr. Erickson: Thank you very much for your post as well. I think you accurately describe the many attitudinal obstacles present among the general public (including some otherwise very intelligent and rational people), as well as elements of change-aversion within the current medical system. These are all issues that would need to be overcome on the road to achieving indefinite lifespans, and they are one reason why I am hoping to influence people’s mindsets – particularly those of the youngest generation – with Death is Wrong. I am hoping that we will see, within our lifetimes, a positive feedback loop of technological breakthroughs catalyzing attitudinal change, and attitudinal change resulting in more support for funding technological breakthroughs and removing regulatory and other institutional obstacles. In getting this process to come about, each of us has some absolute and comparative advantages as to which aspect of the problem he or she works on.

 

Of course, the best outcome would be for life-extending technologies to be developed openly, to be embraced by the general public, and to be made available commercially on the free market to any willing customer – which, as has been seen with virtually all other emerging technologies, would result in the steady improvement of quality while competition works to bring down costs and prices. I think influencing people’s attitudes about life extension will be crucial to avoiding the scenario of the technology going underground or being available to only a select few.

 

Sincerely,

G. Stolyarov II



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - 2:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Joseph Heller, Catch-22:  — 'He was going to live forever, or die in the attempt.'

 

Valiantly, even.

 

I think the premise is brilliant.   I hope my children believe this about their lives, and act accordingly.

 

Death is wrong.  Screw death.   No use for it.

 

regards,

Fred

 

 

 

 



Post 22

Saturday, March 22, 2014 - 12:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mr. Bartlett, thank you for your excellent comment. I could not agree more, and I greatly appreciate your good words.

 

Sincerely,

G. Stolyarov II

 

(Edited by G. Stolyarov II on 3/22, 12:06am)



Post 23

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 - 9:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

To say that death is a 'part' of life comes from the religious impulse that offers humanity an afterlife. Therefore, life and death form a cycle. To this end, death is a part of the goodness of the natural, theological order.

 

But to deny the existence of god is to also reject the possibility of an afterlife.

 

This is why Wittgenstein commented that death is a termination of life, not a part of living for which we somehow prepare. His obvious referent her was Heidegger, who wrote that being in life is being headed for death, etc...my pont here is that, regarding death,  there's been a secular counterforce around for the last 100 years or so that says death is dad.

 

We can also affirm the medcsci has always sought the prolongation of life. It likewise has always formed a marriage of convenience with religion to offer people a backup consolation when medicine fails, as it always, finally, does.

 

As for children, simply raising them as atheist (as I did) will take care of the 'death is goodness' issue once and for all. Conversely, raising them as religious and giving them this book will create confusion and ambiguity.

 

That being said, my personal view is to wait to answer  hard questions only when they're asked, which obviously gives the parent an indication that the kids are ready to understand. My reply to my own was, "No one knows what happens after you die. We have doctors whose job it is to make sure people live as long as possible". So my opinion tilts toward Barathon's: giving a child a book about death is a really bad idea.

 

Lastly, no, the indefinite prolongation of life is not realistic; med sci process is by increments. Moreover, the huge steps in life's extension have, historically,  come with  improvements in social sanitation and available vaccines. Cytology, organ transplants and pills for diabetes are fun to talk about, but are, statistically speaking, only a drop in the statistical well.

 

Brad



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 - 1:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Here we go again.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 - 1:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Time to implement some sort of verification of the identity of newbies, not to say, as Eva would say, that it should be public knowledge.

Maybe just a requirement of those suspected of being trolls.

 

Sam



Post 26

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 - 1:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fighting to push back death (to live longer) is a valid medical, scientific and personal goal.  But it is an important psychological goal to not be in denial about one's personal circumstances.  Those who don't feel the finite nature of life are less likely to value life in as robust a fashion.  For everyone who is reading this, in this time period, if you don't think you are likely to die before reaching age 100, then I'd say you have some issues to work on.

 

At this point in history, we would have to be in denial, or stray into fantasy land to believe we (not some people in the future) are going to live forever. I have to say that I'm a little repulsed at the idea of a child's book on death.  But without reading it ... I might be wrong to feel that way.

 

Death is a part of life.... now.  Just as life has a beginning, in the forseeable future it also has an end.  I don't know that it even makes sense to live forever, but if it does, that is far, far off in the future (if ever) and I don't know that there are many people psychologically capable of maintaining a zest for life that would go on forever.

 

As for the link between religious afterlife and the belief in God... there are religous sects in the Far East that believe in some sort of wheel of life or reincarnation but don't believe in a God.  I  just mention that because it is possible to deny the existence of a God and still believe in an afterlife.



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 - 1:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Or a background process something like this:

 

public void EvaAgain (User User) {

     if (User.getName().WhitebreadEnglish ()) {

          str sPostsToDateThisPersona = User.getAllTexts ();

          int iRather = sPostsToDateThisPersona.OccurrencesOf ("rather") / 100;

          if (iRather) > 5 {

               User.DeleteAccount ();

               return;     // No need to go any further in this case

          }

          iFiveDollar = sPostsToDateThisPersona.OccurrencesOfFiveDollarNames () / 100;

          if (iFiveDollar >= 2) {

               int iEnglish = sPostsToDateThisPersona.EnglishExpressionsMisspelled () / 100;

               int iForeign = sPostsToDateThisPersona.NonEnglishExpressionsMisspelled () / 100;

               if (iForeign + iEnglish > 10) {

                    User.DeleteAccount ();

                    }

               }

          }

     }

}

 

It would trigger on, at most, the third post.

 

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 4/09, 2:06pm)

 

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 4/09, 2:07pm)



Post 28

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 - 5:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

'brad hartley's' posts were accepted by a moderator, unless the following is no longer true.

 

"Until a user has gotten his first Atlas icon (10 Atlas points) all his posts will have to be accepted by the moderator" (link).



Post 29

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 - 3:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

I think you've made an excellent point that not believing in an afterlife gives one an extra sense of urgency to live life to the fullest.

 

However, death is only a part of life to the extent that you make it so. This most likely applies to those who have to fight a deadly illness on a daily basis--something  I just discovered when I was diagnosed with diabetes #2 (mild) last year. So after making some hopelessly mild adjustments (metformin and a pricked finger each day), I get on with things. In other words, i feel that it's important to agree with Wittgenstein as much as possible as an attitude.

 

Lastly, my take on Buddhism is that it denies the nature of god in the sense that it talks of the 'unknowable'. OTH, the 'Western' tradition plows on with textual certitude, as nonsensical as it might be.

 

In any case, to reject Hinduism / Buddhism would be to reject both reincarnation and the existence of spiritual entities that survive material death. 

 

Brad



Post 30

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 - 4:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

What a nice, warm welcome to a 'newbie'!

 

It makes me feel that I just wandered into La Cage aux Folles, rather than an on-line discussuion group that exchanges ideas centered aroud Rand .

 

So am I being checked out by the gurly-gurls?

 

Sincere thanks, Brad



Post 31

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 - 6:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Merlin,

 

I see you post quite frequently; nearly 600 posts makes you sort of an insider who 'knows the ropes', I suppose.

So please don't be offended when I say that, for the record, I have no problems with moderation.for everyone.

 

That's because, on occasions, nearly everyone gets angry and spins out of control. When this happenns it's the moderstor's job to bring things back in--which includes an occasional deletion. 

 

As well, it's just a part of web life that threads tend to stray. Moderation means nudging the conversation back on course.

 

In this regard, I'd hate to be an oldie and have to sift through amateur detective/identity work just to read the relevant texts of legitimate content.

So my opinion is that this stuff needs to be censored-- the holders of said opinions are free to 'protest' directly to the moderator himself.

 

Permit me also to say that  there is, indeed, a certain virtue in saying who you are. Speaking for myself, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to personally meet fellow posters. So if you're ever in Charleston, please send me an email! Again, I'm on the beach on Sully-Island. I'll even show Reidy where to find the gayborhood.

 

But please remember that many prefer to remain anonymous, and creating a persona (Eva?) is just a means of making post sound a bit more human. Yet, actually, it really shouldn't matter--as we all should be responding to our fellow posters 'labels off', right? This, IMHO, is the best way of showing others the respect that they deserve.

 

Thanks, Brad.



Post 32

Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 10:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Creating a persona (Eva?) is just a means of making post sound a bit more human.

 

?!?!?



Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 11:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

...creating a persona (Eva?) is just a means of making post sound a bit more human.

No, it is dishonest.  And the posts of "Eva"/"Will"/whoever were dishonest not just in the persona, but in the intent of the posted content, and content itself.

 

Progressives have adopted the ends justify the means meme and are vigorously using lies and deceit to mask their intentions.  They see that dishonesty as morally acceptable, and they believe that net-net it will move them closer to their goals.  What they have blinded themselves to are the costs of dishonesty, it's long term ineffectual nature, and how the future will find them a failed movement.  Dishonesty will be the fatal flaw in the Progressive bag of tricks.



Post 34

Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 8:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Here we are ... Objectivists being manipulated by a troll who is posing as an Objectivist while insinuating himself/herself into threads that are not designated as "Dissent." Everyone who has engaged her in discussions knows that he/she is misrepresenting himself/herself and she is laughing as she thumbs her nose.

 

The obvious way to counter this and not violate any of our principles and still allow free and open speech and without anyone getting angry or anyone even getting their feelings hurt is to merely refrain from engaging him/her. Does it take too much self restraint to do this? If it does, we don't deserve to be rid of his/her presence. This passive-aggressive little troll will just disappear out of boredom. Future attempts can be readily identified just as her former incursions have.

 

Sam 



Post 35

Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 9:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I sure as hell am not accepting the deceiving socialist scum's posts.  Teresa?



Post 36

Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 10:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I ran out of troll food.



Post 37

Friday, April 11, 2014 - 8:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

My point, Dean, is that we needn't impose any restrictions or sanctions. We don't have to go crying to Joe for help. Just walk away without engaging him/her. 

 

Sam



Post 38

Friday, April 11, 2014 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Sam, Acknowledged, agreed.



Post 39

Friday, April 11, 2014 - 6:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I think Eva is in love with me and can't get enough of that Fissile tackling fuel!!(rolls eyes)



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.