Mitochondria and the Prevention of Death

H_Fisher writes "Research into mitochondria — small structures within a cell that have their own DNA — suggests that they may be a cause of cellular death, according to Newsweek. The article The Science of Death: Reviving the Dead reports on people who have recovered from sudden death due to cardiac arrest through the use of medically induced hypothermia. The cooling process may help stop the death of brain and heart cells initiated by the mitochondria once they are deprived of oxygen. The article goes on to probe delicately at the question of where a person's personality 'is' between death and later revival, and describes several ongoing scientific studies of near-death experiences."

Comments

Re:Been there, done that.

[OmegaBlac]

My point is this: when I was "dead," I never "left my body," I never saw myself and the doctors in the hospital from "above," I never experienced anything. It was like a light-switch was simply flipped. I was just gone. No angels, no bright light, nothing.

So there really are no 72 virgins awaiting Allah's faithful flock? Man death is going to be boring.

Re:Been there, done that.

[Dunbal]

Oh, and another thing I forgot - you are foolish enough to make up your own definition of death in order to justify your own "information", while completely ignoring testimony of two people who have ACTUALLY been clinically dead?

Why the FUCK should we believe you? How many times have YOU died to get this "information"? You're just another attention whore with a "pet theory".

Re:It's not exactly mysterious.

[Dunkirk]

This is part of the problem. You make an assumption that because we're talking about something as dear to you as the very food you eat, then you get to do as much harm as you like without needing to justify it. But you do need to justify it, as much as any action that has an impact on others. Who said I needed to justify it? You? So what? Who in the world am I "impacting" when I eat an animal? You've completely lost me on this.

It's perfectly clear from this discussion that you hold the life of what I call "food" as nearly as important as a human being's. It speaks to at least a nearly-religious view. But I'm going to take a wild guess that you don't take my religious views seriously, being as they're based on a rather literal interpretation of a book that is several thousand years old. So why should I take your views seriously? By what moral or logical authority do you make your argument? You think it's just obvious that we should leave as little "mark" on the ecology as possible. I think it's just as obvious that all this "stuff" was put here for our explicit use as raw materials for any manner of things, not even just food.

In a overly broad stroke, I'll point out that most vegans are probably supportive of a woman's "choice." You may or may not be covered in this generalization personally, but, in the main, how can anything they say about the sanctity of animals be taken seriously when they feel it's permissible to kill perfectly viable people just prior to being born?

The bottom line is that you're simply wrong, both philosophically and legally. I do NOT have to justify my diet. Not to you, or anyone else, for that matter. It's not being forced on me by humanity or the country I'm living in, nor is it in my ethical convictions, nor is it implied by my moral code. Your position is interesting and certainly well thought out, but it doesn't make it absolute.

And you know what? Neither is mine, but I'm not the one telling YOU that you MUST eat meat.