I think that this post conflates two issues, and is an example of a flaw of reasoning that goes like this:
Alice: It would be good if we could change [thing X].
Bob: Ah, but if we changed X, then problems A, B, and C would ensue! Therefore, it would not be good if we could change X.
Bob is confusing the desirability of the change with the prudence of the change. Alice isn't necessarily saying that we should make the change she's proposing. She's saying it would be good if we could do so. But Bob immediately jumps to examining what problems would ensue if we changed X, decides that changing X would be imprudent, and concludes from this that it would also be undesirable.
But that last step is entirely groundless. Something could be a bad idea in practice due to implementation difficulties, but very desirable. These are orthogonal considerations. (Another way to think about it is: the consequences of making a change, vs. the consequences of the means used to implement said change.)
I think that Bob's mistake is rooted in the fact that he is treating Alice's proposal as, essentially, a wish made to a genie. "Oh great genie," says Alice, "please make it so that death is no more!" Bob, horri...
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Other paraphrases:
Truth never triumphs -- its opponents just die out.
Science advances one funeral at a time.
Might edit in my thoughts on the post later on. Probably not in depth, the Cliff notes would go something like
Naturally humans developed coping mechanisms to deal with the inevitability of dying. It would be surprising to find such mitigation methods not only diminishing the negative impact of someone close to you dying, but to actually change the sign ("get out of it stronger"). Like a car bumper which not only lessens crash damage, but actually improves the car upon impact.
Indeed, death is an integral part of the natural selection cycle, and may have various societal benefits. Let's assume that was the whole of it, hypothetically, no negative societal downsides. So now what? Now this: I don't care. I want neither me nor my loved ones to die, and societal consequences be damned. That doesn't mean that ceteris paribus I don't want to benefit society (I do)
You have given reasons why death can provide utility. You have not established how these reasons comparatively outweigh the vast disutility of death, or that similar utility could not be gained without death.
I'll give the classical rebuttal.
If you were immortal, and I mean "unaging and healing", in a society of immortals, and reasonably adapted to immortality - would your post convince you to give death a try? I think you know the answer.
Before I start my defense I propose a different more neutral term for deathism: Senexism - from the latin adjective senex - old.
I propose this because death is only the end of an aging process and by focussing on the ultimate and emotionally disturbing result one loads the topic with negative connotations.
Lemme quote some more from Orwell's Politics and the English Language.
...Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.
...
...The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin word
I have to admit that I didn't follow the argument as an argument - it seemed like a number of disconnected points. Some of them seemed more like sour grapes, some like salvaging some good out of a mostly-bad event. I appreciate the references.
The first third of the post should be deleted, or put in discussion - it's a defense of talking about the subject, and a rebuttal of other posts, not anything that stands on it's own. But since it includes a threat that I'll feel bad if I downvote before reading, I had to read it.
For your first actual point, you ...
Thanks for this post. I basically agree with you, and it's very nice to see this here, given how one-sided LW's discussion on death usually is.
I agree with you that the death of individual humans is important for the societal suporganism because it keeps us from stagnating. But even if that weren't true, I would still strongly believe in the value of accepting death, for pretty much exactly the reasons you mentioned. Like you, I also suspect that modern society's sheltering, both of children and adults, is leading to our obsession with preventing death ...
Ok, first of all, I do have to ask: are you a non-native English speaker? The mechanics here could use a little work iff you're native, but if you're non-native, they're quite good and the flaws are easily forgivable.
Now, main point: personally, I see no point going on Grand Religious Crusades about death -- for or against. If someone really, truly does want to die (and there are plenty of days I think, "how could I ever put up with this shit we call life forever!?" myself), we should let them. If someone really, truly does not want to die, an...
They used to say "if people are not dying, we're not trying hard enough".
So the harder we are to kill, the harder we can try. This example argues in the opposite direction from what you present it as.
if nobody [] dies for space exploration we are cheating humanity.
If you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin.
I think the intent there was that we should be pushing for space exploration quickly, and we can accept a relatively high risk of death in order to get the benefits sooner. I doubt the person who said that would want astronauts to kill themselves if nobody's died for space exploration in the past decade, or to engage in increasingly risky behaviors without commensurate rewards.
To those who think that death should be a choice. What about the benefits of knowing that we are mortal, which death by choice doesn't allow for. e.g. as a counter force to arrogance and as a force to act now, and so as we age to start reevaluating our priorities, in other words, the benefits while we live to knowing that we are mortal may outweigh the benefit of immortality. I suspect these concerns have been dealt with on this site, so if they have feel free to link me to an appropriate post instead of writing a new response,
I find the formatting of this article distracting. What is it with this one-paragraph-per-sentence approach?
More importantly, I find this article rather repulsive in the way it argues; "if we're not dying, we're not trying hard enough"? "being wary of death leads to mediocre living"? "growing old is useful"? This all sounds to me like weak, half-hearted rationalizations.
Neither of them seem to be solid arguments against the very simple statement: "every human should be able to live for as long as they want". If they ...
Most of your post is not arguments against curing death.
People being risk-averse has nothing to do with anti-aging research and everything to do with individuals not wanting to die...which has always been true (and becomes more true as life expectancy rises and the "average life" becomes more valuable). The same is true for "we should risk more lives for science".
I agree that people adapt OK to death, but I think you're poking a strawman; the reason death is bad is because it kills you, not because it makes your friends sad.
I think &quo...
I propose this because death is only the end of an aging process and by focussing on the ultimate and emotionally disturbing result one loads the topic with negative connotations.
Senescence on the other hand - though unwanted - has also positive connotations of experience and humility.
This is loading connotation, just differently. Better is to taboo death or temporarily define it to cover that and only that which is in dispute. This redefinition implicitly marks some of the factors salient to 'anti-deathists'* as irrelevant. E.g. from an information-th...
Sometimes I think our society could benefit from a bit more harm. Wouldn't we value life more and make more out of it?
Did you know? When you can be hurt at any time, you feel pain more, not less. Similarly, when you can die at any time, you value life less, not more. (Well, I do.)
On Thoughts on Death I refused to defend deathism because
[missing from import]
that is no consolation for someone who has lost a relative to death "my position on death is controversial here" and "the only relatives I lost until now were grandparents" But
[missing from import]
doesn't apply in this independent post. shouldn't hold me back in general. I risk loosing karma but I'll try to defend my view as objectively and scholarly as a can (given one day preparation).
[missing from import]
was countered in the comment by Mestroyer so I wrote this argument ...
Has anyone considered that life may not be that great? Considering that:
short response is "yeah, sure, sorta ... but only if you're a stupid group. we can do better."
edit: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jop/a_defense_of_senexism_deathism/akk3 is the longer version of this response
About the Spirit of Deathism
I understand that defending deathism is problematic on this forum.
I assume that this is because it is seen as inconsequential, pessimistic and against the spirit of the forum.
I feel that the latter is related to EYs strong opinion on this matter.
I was moved by his account about the death of his brother.
Do I understand as well as he how bad death is?
Do I need to lose a loved one to understand that?
I lost only grandparents until now. I did loose my wife - but not to death, so this presumably doesn't count.
I will lose my father i...
EDIT: Incorporated suggestions from comments: Moved off-topic parts into comments, improved formatting, corrected links.
The LW post Value Deathism differntiates between the illusory nature of death and the 'desirability' of death called deathism proper. This post is about the latter. Where desirability is meant in a general sense and not (only) in the sense of desirable for an individual.
I propose a different more neutral term for deathism: Senexism - from the latin adjective senex - old. I propose this because death is only the end of an aging process and by focussing on the ultimate and emotionally disturbing result one loads the topic with negative connotations. Senescence on the other hand - though unwanted - has also positive connotations of experience and humility. This also nicely splits off (or reduces applicability of) death by accident.
My defense is twofold. First I address the (emotional) pain and loss death causes and point out adaptive affects of the coping mechanisms humans have. Second I address the actual benefits senescence and death has - not for the individual but for the group. Thus the latter is an utilitarian argument for death actually.
I will provide current research results for these points. At the end I will conclude with an opinion piece on what this means for rationalists and an outlook how this applies in light of the singularity.
How does (fear of) death affect you?
Terror Management Theory (TMT) posits that
people cope with mortality by creating beliefs and values that promise a sense of immortality.
And research supports the premise that these beliefs are
(a) defended more when people are reminded of death and
(b) protect people from mortality concerns.
Some more scientifically validated claims of TMT are (nicely presented by psychology today):
Death reminders cause people to self-enhance and protect self-esteem, such as by agreeing more with positive feedback and taking more credit for success and identify more with members of their own group, and even to rate them as more unique from other animals.
One can see this even here on LW e.g. in links from Death and also in the defenses of cryonics - which look like an afterlife meme.
Applied to this post this means that you are likely to
1) defend [your] cultural worldviews more strongly.
(here e.g. denial of death via cryonics) thus I objectively risk karma.
This is the reason I started this post with a positive confirmation. I hacked you dammit. I used this fact:
9) Defending any of these things (relationships, beliefs, etc) prior to being reminded of death, or taking away people's anxiety, reduces the effects that mortality thoughts have.
Western thinking of coping with death is confused with beliefs of coping with death. Probably due to the above effect itself.
We seem to believe that (when you read this ask yourself: Do you agree with this?)
- Bereaved persons are expected to exhibit significant distress following a major loss, and the failure to experience such distress tends to be seen as indicative of a problem.
- Positive emotions are implicitly assumed to be absent during this period. If they are expressed, they tend to be viewed as an indication that people are denying or covering up their distress.
- Following the loss of a loved one, the bereaved must confront and “work through” their feelings about the loss. Efforts to avoid or deny feelings are maladaptive in the long run.
- It is important for the bereaved to break down their attachment to the deceased loved one.
- Within a year or two, the bereaved will be able to come to terms with what has happened, recover from the loss, and resume their earlier level of functioning.
Do you agree?
Yes?
No! These are all Myths of coping with death!
It is true that
Unlike many stressful life experiences, bereavement cannot be altered by the coping efforts of survivors. Indeed, the major coping task faced by the bereaved is to reconcile themselves to a situation that cannot be changed and find a way to carry on with their own lives.
But this doesn't mean that is must always hurt and take long.
Thus from our society and being human we are bound to believe that (we should believe that) death is horrible and we should suffer from encountering it.
For an efficiently working brain (that is set on the track of avoiding death at all cost) it is not hard to spot patterns that support the view that death is only bad.
This means that among all topics you are most likely to fall prey to one bias or other with respect to death memes e.g.
There are probably lots others. Take finding them as a homework (or chance for a comment).
But death and loss may not be as devasting as you make it.
In particular according to Nordanger (2007)
Epidemiological studies indicate that the majority of trauma survivors recover from initial posttraumatic reactions without professional help and their posttraumatic adjustment may be facilitated by indigenous coping resources and socioeconomic structures such as traditional healers, traditions and rituals.
and Zautra 2010
It would be most consistent with what we observe in human communities to see resilience as a natural capacity to recover and perhaps even further one’s adaptive capacities
I also understand that indigenous tribes which are more acutely affected by harm and death do not suffer the same way from it we do.
Can it be that anti-deathism is a foul meme we acquired when technology 'robbed' us of 'natural' experience of death?
With this I close the coping section and move on to the actual benefits.
The Wikipedia article on aging states that
The evolutionary origin of senescence remains a fundamental unsolved problem in biology.
But gives some hints as to its origin: New results on the old disposable soma theory and new group selection theories of aging.
Following up on that you can find that it is likely adaptive even if there is not yet consensus about this.
For example after Joshua Mitteldorf has
summarized a diverse body of data indicating that senescence is an adaptation selected for its own sake.
he goes on to that
the proposed benefit is that senescence protects against infectious epidemics by controlling population density and increasing diversity of the host population.
and find evidence that
Senescence benefits the rate of evolution, increases diversity, and shortens the effective generation time.
Note that this biological argument also applies to memes.
You can have 'infectious diseases' of the mind which in a technological society may dominate the biological effects.
Applying this principle to science might mean that without death scienctific progress might go slower - something we have been already told:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
(Max Planck in his Autobiography)
This section gives my personal opinion on risk aversion in our society.
Technological progress in the last century has worked hard on satisfying basic needs. What remains are complex social needs and existential fears.
Fear of death has led to what I believe overly protecting children (and adults). For fear of injury or abuse children often no longer have the chance to
A comparable list could also be given for adults. Please feel free to comment on this.
All of this protection surely leads to some (minor?) reduction of health risks. But all of this also leads to a reduction of efficiency. Some of this protection even pose other (longer term) health risks which are less salient (yet?). This is a promotion of mediocrity. Sometimes I think our society could benefit from a bit more harm. Wouldn't we value life more and make more out of it?
Even if you do not agree with me on this one, maybe you do on the following.
Sometimes it is necessary to Make an Extraordinary Effort or even to Shut up and do the impossible! This implies setting aside some of your mental barriers. Barriers that protect you from danger, exhaustion and possibly death (not necessarily immediate but possibly speeding up senescence).
Some say that there are areas where this may be necessary:
if nobody [] dies for space exploration we are cheating humanity. We are just not trying hard enough to get off this planet and into space. I firmly believe that moving into space is really important to the future of my species. We are going to penetrate space and become a space-faring race or we are going to stagnate and pass on."
http://leepers.us/mtvoid/2003/VOID0207.htm (section Acceptable risk)
They used to say "if people are not dying, we're not trying hard enough".
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31452.30
This may also apply for other human endeavors.
Now that we have reached the edge of human progress I want to drive my argument a bit beyond its applicability. The evolutionary biological benefit of senescence and death may not apply once humans can fully engineer biology. What if we "if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were"? Does this stop the argument? Any group-benefit argument continues to apply if a population of distinct minds remains. If the minds incorporate mutual experience than the minds either converge to multiple identical minds or the minds maintain a difference in which case the group benefit argument may continue to hold.
Independent of whether you want to avoid becoming identical to all other minds - being a single mind makes it a single point of failure. Death - of a certain kind - may be necessary even for parts of a super intelligence.
Mentioned above and some more:
For background you might consult the Baseline of my opinion on LW topics.
For the TLDR crowd:
Humans have powerful mental adaptations to cope with death/loss (they often actually learn from it and get out of it stronger).
Death/senescence/loss is adaptive for the group providing real benefits an utilitarian should see and build on.