[jolmg]

> So really... is being dead a problem for the dead? Or is it more the concern of those still alive?

I wouldn't weigh them. It could go either way.

The problem for the dead is the loss of opportunity. The waste. If I have some amount of cash in my wallet, what I'm able to do with it will depend on the market that's available to me. Maybe I won't be able to afford the same things others do in other places, but I should be able to take some advantage of it. Dying is dropping that cash down the gutter. It's utterly wasteful, to put it politely.

Doing the same with your time alive is even more so because you can't get it back.

Even the most minimal use of your 5 senses is a good use. Even dreaming while sleep is a good use. Even just thinking is a good use. The opportunity to use that time for anything at all is lost when you die.

I'm sure there must be someone that would love to be in your shoes. You say you got your pay reduced by $10,000 a year. I know people that likely make only 1/4 of that a year. Then there's the terminally ill. The envy! How luxurious of you to not want your life.

At the very least, couldn't you seek someone terminally ill and live to fulfill their dream? Live the life they wanted? It could be a simple one. Doesn't matter if you don't manage to fulfill it, just part-way is fine. Someone else might be able to continue from where you left off if that happens. And it's not like you're planning on doing something else anyway.

[justathrowa]

>The problem for the dead is the loss of opportunity. The waste. If I have some amount of cash in my wallet, what I'm able to do with it will depend on the market that's available to me. Maybe I won't be able to afford the same things others do in other places, but I should be able to take some advantage of it. Dying is dropping that cash down the gutter. It's utterly wasteful, to put it politely.

I disagree. Go outside someday and pick up a stone. Chances are there are no other stones exactly like it in the entirety of the universe. Perhaps someday it could inspire something great, or be used to end someone's life. But realistically it will likely just be a rock that sits there. Just like millions of other rocks.

Assuming the best is a romantic notion, but you just don't know either way. But ask yourself this... if that rock were to suddenly vanish from existence, would your life really be any worse for it? Or could you just find another rock?

>At the very least, couldn't you seek someone terminally ill and live to fulfill their dream? Live the life they wanted? It could be a simple one. Doesn't matter if you don't manage to fulfill it, just part-way is fine

...Imagine you saw someone doing something that you loved. But you could see on their face that, at best, they derived no joy from it. At worst they didn't want to be there, that it was something outside of their control that compelled them.

Forget the other person for a moment. Could you honestly say that seeing that would make you happy?

FWIW I did look into being a living organ donor. There's a rather extensive psychological evaluation that goes with it though and you need to have a fairly strong social support circle for them to even entertain the idea. Can't imagine why a bunch of doctors wouldn't want someone that has no support circle to undergo a major surgery that would leave them too weak to do much on their own for weeks and very much vulnerable to a potentially lethal post operation infection.

[jolmg]

> I disagree... if that rock were to suddenly vanish from existence, would your life really be any worse for it? Or could you just find another rock?

I'm not sure how your point counts as a disagreement. You're telling me about how unessential you are, and I don't see how that matters. Nearly everybody is unessential. Heck, being "essential" depends on other people's opinion, and I don't see how their opinion matters either. There's nobody in the world that's really essential.

Before the needs of the world comes the needs of oneself. Though we can enjoy being important to others, nobody needs that to enjoy life. It's just one way to do it.

There's nothing wrong with a mundane life either. Many people even covet for a simple, ordinary life. I did. I was dealt a bad hand (perhaps avoidable/fixable with more effort by me, though that's in hindsight), that I thought I was going to have to live with for the rest of my life. I learned to accept it, commit to it, and enjoy what I still had available to enjoy. Things got better to my surprise and dismay (yes, it was very conflicting), but I would have been fine even if it didn't.

Even members of the lowest social/economic classes laugh heartedly at times and have their own ways to enjoy their time.

> Imagine you saw someone doing something that you loved... Could you honestly say that seeing that would make you happy?

I was trying to write in broad terms. Their wish might not be because the act would make them happy. Rather, one can wish for a task they want done. Even if the person doing it doesn't enjoy it, if it gets the task any closer to completion, then that could make them happy.

As an example, if someone dying is worrying about the care of a dependent loved one, taking steps to care for that dependent person would make them happy no matter how much you might hate it. There's no completion to it either. Any amount of care would be welcomed, I think.

> FWIW I did look into being a living organ donor.

If your health isn't so bad that you're close to dying, then that's also very wasteful in my opinion. You can achieve more with a healthy body. Leave the donation until after you die. There'll always be someone in need of an organ. Even if you provide one now, that'll just leave someone in the future without an organ you could have provided then.

You seem fixated on the happiness of others. Can't you be a little more selfish? You should be able to enjoy life on your own. Actually, you should be able to enjoy it even if you were the only living being on this planet. Even in those circumstances, I think I'd lack time to fully enjoy life. I'd probably spend my time either studying something to make sense of the world or developing skills. That'd be my enjoyment even if there's no one to acknowledge me. I hear others enjoy the feeling of aching muscles after a day's work. I imagine they'd enjoy building stuff, maybe a garden. With the abundance of things we have, it's a matter of choosing the best way to spend our time rather than having trouble finding anything at all. Can't you find a hobby? There's an infinitude of things to enjoy.

Re: finding another rock. You don't need to be irreplaceable to be loved. You can be the support of someone that would appreciate it and find joy that way, too.

Though if work works, then I think that's good too. I had written these other comments on that:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25767695

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25767160

[justathrowa]

Not so much essentially as it the futility of imagining unrealized potential. In hindsight I now realize that my example was exceedingly poor, and apologize for that. Many people, including, speak to said that potential as if it were an inevitably good and I find that speculation to be someone taking a terribly romanticized view of someone. Especially after they were gone. Just as much as someone is capable of being great, so too could they be capable of being a disappointment.

And if you talk about potential, I'd also argue that no matter how much waste there is, there's enough numbers in the world to take it's place readily.

>If your health isn't so bad that you're close to dying, then that's also very wasteful in my opinion. You can achieve more with a healthy body. Leave the donation until after you die. There'll always be someone in need of an organ. Even if you provide one now, that'll just leave someone in the future without an organ you could have provided then.

Perhaps but bear in mind that it probably be just the one. Organ donation campaigners harp over and over again that one donor could give back life to multiple people. So is it a waste? It becomes more the trolley question more then anything else; if one person dying could save six others, is him not choosing the die the same as choosing to kill them?

>You seem fixated on the happiness of others. Can't you be a little more selfish?

I'm not sure what you mean. I am being selfish. A selfless man would've conformed to what others demanded and endured in solitary silence no matter what, doing all and asking nothing in return.

[jolmg]

> Just as much as someone is capable of being great, so too could they be capable of being a disappointment.

You manage what you can manage. Potential is just a guess. Nothing more. I'm also a disappointment to myself in various ways, but that's all it is. A feeling. It comes and goes like any other feeling. Sometimes feelings linger, but that's a choice. My enjoying life doesn't depend one bit on it.

Perhaps I could have enjoyed life more if I reached my potential, if the guess was correct, but that doesn't mean that life can't be enjoyed. It takes almost absolutely nothing. It just depends on your sense of appreciation.

Even "bad" things can be appreciated and enjoyed. I've let sorrow linger in times of mourning, for example. It's fine. Others can appreciate their misfortunes, because it's an opportunity to gain experience, character, or something else they can take pride in.

> And if you talk about potential, I'd also argue that no matter how much waste there is, there's enough numbers in the world to take it's place readily.

That about a person with potential being replaceable I agree is fact, though I'm not sure why it matters. From your use of the word "waste" (which is totally different from the use I gave it) it's like you're trying to put value on a person's life from the perspective of how much they can contribute to society, but that's wrong. The only perspective that matters is one's own. The value we should put on the lives of others should be through empathy, the imagining of another's life as our own. If that weren't the case, we'd be killing off anyone that we deemed wouldn't produce value for society, but we don't and I wouldn't want to be part of a society that does.

> Organ donation campaigners harp over and over again that one donor could give back life to multiple people. So is it a waste?

Oh, sure. If you mean donating blood, then by all means that's great. I thought you were talking about donating a kidney or part of your liver or something that could decrease your potential to live a long and able life and which wouldn't make much difference if you donate now or later.

> It becomes more the trolley question more then anything else; if one person dying could save six others, is him not choosing the die the same as choosing to kill them?

I don't see how it became a trolley question. That's about valuing the lives of others relative to themselves. It's not about valuing the life of oneself relative to others. It's only in very few and exceptional circumstances where anyone would argue against always valuing their own lives above others', and even then it's always a valid choice to choose oneself.

> I'm not sure what you mean. I am being selfish.

No, you're not. You're always bringing other people and society into your own life's valuation. When valuing your own life, the wants and opinions of others don't matter.

You seem confused in thinking that things have just 1 value. That's wrong. Everybody puts value on things based on how much they personally gain from it. When valuing things in the interest of others and "against" one's own, one feels a personal gain through empathy, or they can feel or imagine the love from others, or they gain validation of their sense of justice or responsibility, etc.

In personally valuing your own life's existence, you should only think of your personal gain. What do you gain? You gain everything! You gain the ability to gain! In not valuing your life and always bringing other people into the scope, I can only think that your sense of empathy is too strong. That it blinds you and prevents you from forming your own wants and appreciations of what you have. You should care less of others and enjoy whatever you can of the world for yourself.

Though, since you bring up the topic of potential, perhaps it's also possible that you're too fixated on not attaining a particular deal. Like wanting to buy something, so you save for it, then realize it was much more expensive or the price rose or something, becoming disappointed and wanting to throw that money down the gutter. There's a lot of other things to buy! The market is vast. You just need to recognize their value. Anything is better than nothing, so use up every cent.[1]

Or maybe the disappointment is not your own's but others', in which case I again insist that you shouldn't care about that and have pride and understanding in what you have accomplished. I doubt you've done worse than all others and your circumstances are your own, not necessarily comparable to anyone else's. Though even if you don't feel that way, that shouldn't prevent you from enjoying life.

In case the reply feature here becomes disabled and you want to continue talking, my email is [e-mail]. That's JOL.

[1] It probably goes without saying, but to clarify the metaphor, time left alive = money and the market is the sum of all possible experiences and joys that life can bring. Prices and available items vary by personal circumstances. People may value items quite higher than their price. It depends on if they know how to appreciate it. Bakers and cooks are going to appreciate flour more than those that are neither. Likewise, simple things like taking a nap in the sun while a breeze runs through can be quite enjoyable too.

[justathrowa]

>Oh, sure. If you mean donating blood, then by all means that's great. I thought you were talking about donating a kidney or part of your liver or something that could decrease your potential to live a long and able life and which wouldn't make much difference if you donate now or later.

I was talking about organs. Kidney, liver, and at least one lung lobe, possible more then one; they're all eligible for living donation it is something that they will not let you do on a whim; interviews, psychological evaluations. I didn't try to; I might have been able to muddle my way through and tell them what they wanted to but it would've also drawn unwanted attention to myself. And that's a risk I wasn't willing to take.

Blood donation is mindlessly trivial to accomplish, all you really do is fill a questionnaire and then just lie there with a needle in your arm for an even shorter period of time. And then you get cookies.

Amusingly I did consider suicide in a hospital. Walk in the door with an organ donor card and a gun, sign it in front of the receptionist and end it with a bullet through my head let them hook up my brain dead self on a ventilator. Silly unworkable idea of course... doubt many people would react particularly well to seeing that. Not least of which the receptionist.

>I don't see how it became a trolley question. That's about valuing the lives of others relative to themselves. It's not about valuing the life of oneself relative to others. It's only in very few and exceptional circumstances where anyone would argue against always valuing their own lives above others', and even then it's always a valid choice to choose oneself.

If we follow the presumption that all people are equal, then that logically continues it is the n > 1 lives must always be more valuable then any 1 life. Under that it becomes a simple numbers question. In which case it's valid to say that I'm being selfish in valuing my own life over others. If instead we say that it is fine to value your own life over 6 others, inherently the idea of equality must be false.

>No, you're not. You're always bringing other people and society into your own life's valuation. When valuing your own life, the wants and opinions of others don't matter. > >You seem confused in thinking that things have just 1 value. That's wrong. Everybody puts value on things based on how much they personally gain from it. When valuing things in the interest of others and "against" one's own, one feels a personal gain through empathy, or they can feel or imagine the love from others, or they gain validation of their sense of justice or responsibility, etc. > >In personally valuing your own life's existence, you should only think of your personal gain. What do you gain? You gain everything! You gain the ability to gain! In not valuing your life and always bringing other people into the scope, I can only think that your sense of empathy is too strong. That it blinds you and prevents you from forming your own wants and appreciations of what you have. You should care less of others and enjoy whatever you can of the world for yourself.

Does it really matter what I want? It's always seem to prove irrelevant. Even in this thread I have to wonder because no one really stopped to asked, "Do you want to die?" Not even you.

To answer; maybe, I don't know. If the answer was yes then you would be off doing whatever it is you do on a Friday night, and I would already be cold in the morgue. If the answer was no, then why dwell on it?

But do you now why I don't typically put much thought into what I want? Would you still say I should be selfish and form my own wants if that answer started sliding towards, "Yes I want to die?"

[jolmg]

It seems I was a bother to you more than any actual help. Sorry.

[jolmg]

Even if I comment on other stuff, I'm still going to be watching this thread in case you want to talk.