[alanwatts]

>Death is not a part of life, it is its destruction.

Life and death are part of the same simultaneous process. For a living thing to grow, it must die at the same time. Death is life's change agent.

"Controlled death of cells is as much a part of embryonal development as is cell proliferation and differentiation."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8801138

[Neslit]

But, do you agree that the part where the whole human mind (not just some cells) has to die---a soul annihilated permanently---is not really a good thing, even if it happens to be the state we find nature in?

[alanwatts]

Not necessarily. The "whole human mind" and the "soul" are very metaphysical concepts so it's tough to say.

In my estimation, the "whole human mind" or "soul" of a person is not annihilated when someone dies. Our minds are an amorphous network constantly in intercourse with and dependent upon eachother.

When a loved one dies, all of the love they gave and words they said exist in some form or another within us, within our hearts and minds which we then pass on to others in turn.

Picture a field full of one type of flowers. If that one type of flowers grows old but never dies, soon enough there is no room for newer or better flowers to grow and evolve.

So as old minds pass away, new minds are born which draw upon the old minds' knowledge but also build upon that knowledge with newer and better ideas.

Alan Watts - Acceptance of Death

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK1BJkBJdtY

[Neslit]

“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.” --Woody Allen

Some small parts of a person can be transmitted to the outside world, but this leaves out the vast, rich internal world each mind carries with it. If I picture a loved one dying, I feel pretty concerned with the part where they don't keep being alive, keep pursuing their goals and having rich experiences and exploring and loving and being loved and creating and etc. How does this compare with your thoughts?

This may be painful to think about in detail. But I think it is actually important to think about anyway, because there are actual important decisions we have to make (whether to do research in to life extension, whether to sign up for cryonics, etc.), and we seem to be making the wrong decisions when we don't have everything in view; including the most painful parts, which happen to be the most important!

I'm also pretty confused why people bring up supposed benefits of society; to be frank, it sounds to me like people are suggesting "we should kill (let die) all the old and sick people to free up floor space" or "we should kill (let die) all the old and sick people so we don't have to spend any time dealing with their backwards ideas".

[aninhumer]

>When a loved one dies, all of the love they gave and words they said exist in some form or another within us

Yes, but all of that would still exist if they didn't die, so it's irrelevant.

>Acceptance of Death

There's a difference between coming to terms with the likelihood of ones death, and thinking it's a good thing.

Death is a horrible thing that we should seek to prevent if at all possible.

[stephencanon]

It's absolutely a good thing. We need some of our cells to die as our tissues develop, society needs people to die in order to develop. A society without death would be a stagnant hell.

[aninhumer]

Would it? Perhaps we wouldn't be so cagey around racist grandparents (or their equivalent) if they weren't going to die soon.

I think it's an incredibly pessimistic view of humanity to suggest social change can only come about through death.

Moreover, I think this argument tends to come solely from people trying to excuse death, rather than any kind of reasonable analysis.

[stephencanon]

The problem is that in a world without aging and natural death, your racist great-great-grandparents have (effectively) all of the resources and power, and therefore no reason to listen to you at all.

Yes, this is a pessimistic viewpoint, but I think it's also a realistic one.

[aninhumer]

But we're not talking about cell death. We're talking about the death of sentient entities.

[laotzu]

Define sentient entities

[aninhumer]

Do you think there's a point to be made in the detail of the distinction?

My point is that death sucks, and when I say that, I'm talking about children crying because they can't see granny any more. Talking about cell death is a distraction.

[alanwatts]

Those crying children couldn't exist if their grandparents and their grandparents down the line never died. There wouldn't be enough food or resources to sustain indefinite existence for everyone who wants it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecophagy

[aninhumer]

That just means food production is a problem we need to solve in order to prevent people dying. It doesn't mean the death itself is a good thing.

And if food consumption truly became limiting, would you prefer a society that kills people at a certain age, or one that limits the birth rate?

[alanwatts]

>would you prefer a society that kills people at a certain age, or one that limits the birth rate?

Neither. I'd prefer one smart enough to understand the demographic economic paradox and successfully raise the standard of living so that the problem of overpopulation solves itself naturally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility