Slashdot Mirror
Transhumanist Children's Book Argues, "Death Is Wrong"
destinyland writes "Hoping to inspire life-extending medical research, science fiction author Gennady Stolyarov has launched a campaign to give away 1,000 free copies of his transhumanist picture book for children, Death is Wrong. 'My greatest fear about the future is not of technology running out of control or posing existential risks to humankind,' he explains. 'Rather, my greatest fear is that, in the year 2045, I will be...wondering, "What happened to that Singularity we were promised by now...?"' Along with recent scientific discoveries, the book tells its young readers about long-lived plants and animals '"that point the way toward lengthening lifespans in humans,' in an attempt to avoid a future where children 'would pay no more attention to technological progress and life-extension possibilities than their predecessors did.'"
There's already far too many humans on the planet. If we stop dying there'll be nothing to eat and nowhere to stand.
when quality of life is what really matters? Maybe once we can create a sustainable society where people are actually happy we can focus on resource drains like people who never die.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Grow up, death is desirable, just imagine someone like Zuckerberg alive forever.
No one "promised" you a singularity, it was a prediction like flying cars (which are an absurdity when you think about it) and a very small percentage of population deserve such things.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If only there was some way to prevent unwanted pregnancies... a sort of "birth control". Nah, better just resign ourselves and all future humans to the horrible infinite nothingness of death. Working on solutions to problems is hard! It's easier to just spout off some drivel about the circle of life.
Because you haven't submitted any better articles.
Man. This is a barrel scraper 'tho.
I have one proposition for Gennady. Why not stop killing each other first? Work that angle on the "Death is Wrong" gig. Then, when we have problem A solved, get to the advanced degree shit. You dig?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Why is this here? Because it's arguing about extending human life.
To say "death is wrong" is like saying "fly death is wrong" or "spider death is wrong". It isn't wrong. It's built in to the system.
"And in spite of pride and erring reason spite, one truth stands clear -- what ever is, is right" (A. Pope -- An essay on man -- not sure if I have the quote exact, but it's pretty close).
I'm all for advances in science improving the QUALITY of life and allowing us to live as long as we naturally can -- but to live forever? Even beyond whatever is currently our max (maybe 120 or 130 years)? It poses ethical questions itself -- not the opposite that it's WRONG to not live forever.
To say "death is wrong" is like saying "fly death is wrong" or "spider death is wrong". It isn't wrong. It's built in to the system.
Naturalistic fallacy.
and look out a window. The last time I landed in Las Vegas I was stunned at how much of the us is completely and totally unoccupied.
Drive out to state college PA sometime - nothing but trees on either side of you for hours on end.
I heard a stat a few years ago saying the entire population of the world could fit into the state of Texas at the density of NYC. Yes, that doesn't account for infrastructure, and food production, but the point is that the entire world would be left over for that.
There is lots of room on this blue marble. Technology will find a way to support us all.
Why not stop killing each other first?
That's a terrible idea. If immortality turns out to be possible, we'll likely need a few perpetual wars to help thin out the population until we have the technology to blast the excess into space.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
It's really sad to see the comments about life extension being bad or we are going to overpopulate the planet etc. They truly show the lack of imagination and understanding of much of the /. readership. There are some truly closed minds here among people calling them selves Liberals, Libertarians and Progressives. The reactions are very much like those of a society and system of thinking that thinks a cat can steal the breath of a baby, a society where superstition is given more weight than science.
The population models of Thomas Malthus were wrong. Paul Ehrlich's reuse of those models was wrong and reusing those same tired models will continue to be wrong. You are placing your hopes in Armageddon and self distraction instead of the creativity and ingenuity of humanity to make more from what we have than the last generation thought possible.
Stop being small minded lovers of doom!
It all starts at 0
Science fiction author "Gennady Stolyarov" isn't listed in Internet Speculative Fiction Database either, and the book's publisher, "Rational Argumentator Press" has a grand total of *one* publication, and its web presence is a section of Mr. Stolyarov's personal site. So what we're dealing with here is the self-published work by an unpublished crank sci-fi author -- not that there's any dishonor in being an unpublished crank sci-fi author. There's lots of us around.
I peeked inside the book, and what strikes me is that if you squint, this *looks* like a religious tract pitched toward children, right down to the colorful but stiff illustrations. Take a look at the cover, with it's child dressed in a blue oxford shirt, red tie and khaki chinos banishing death. This is peculiar, in a way that I applaud; an image pitched at children by someone so far out of the mainstream that she has no idea what a culturally "normal" child looks like. That's a good thing for the world, although it may not do much for the author's message. It's more important for people with an oddball streak to write books than people who think like everyone else.
This book appears to come out of the same impetus that underlies a lot of religious impulse: rage at the fact we're are going to die. It's a fact we *should* be uncomfortable with. Religion does the most damage when it makes us too comfortable with the prospect of death. The afterlife becomes a make-up session where we can do the things we put off line life like reconciling with estranged loved ones.
Anyone who regards speculation about technological singularity enabling indefinite human life extension as a "promise" is taking far too much comfort in what is, at best, an intriguing idea. But the universe itself has a finite lifespan; any being who could last to the heat death of the universe, or even a single 2 million century "galactic year" would be so far from human that calling it "transhuman" would be like calling ourselves "transprotozoans".
Whether we just disappear after a mere century or so, or survive as something unrecognizable as human, our opportunity to experience the universe as ourselves, as humans, is brief. We should make the most of it, no matter what we plan to leave behind when our human existence is done.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Even if we get the population sorted out, if we live forever, what drive do we have to accomplish anything?
Not everyone holds off on things simply because it'll be a while before they die. Lots of people just, you know, want to get things done.
Death is the drive behind making life meaningful.
People decide their own meaning.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I like this line of thinking. I mean, there's fish and lizards and stuff out there that live for hundreds of years... Why not humans?
I for one think that a longer life might be the key first step to that bright-shiny technological future we've been promised; Imagine what some of the greatest minds of our time could accomplish with an extra hundred years, or even an extra sixty.
Besides... Future generations should have a better life than us, otherwise what was the point?
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
> Without death, there's no evolution possible
Unless a species can modify its own biology, or the evolution of _technology_ or of _societies_ can be included. And in practice, it is: evolution is not just DNA biology, it involves entire ecosystems and behavior that are effective, but contained nowhere within the biology of a species.
It may be a good survival trait to have fear of death, but it leads to things like religions, including this new technological one, and prolonging life beyond when it serves an evolutionary incentive.
We should probably take away the insulin from the diabetics and the classes and contacts from people who are near-sighted, and undo any laser surgeries we've done on peoples eyes.
You know, to serve as an evolutionary incentive.
In case you were wondering, evolution is not "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of those who successfully reproduce most", or we would have weeded things like near-sightedness out of the genome a long time ago, along with all other recessive traits.
I find it the essence of emotional immaturity to fear death so much we need to somehow eradicate it or even just call it "wrong." Death is quite right and quite natural. We'd do much better getting to know death as a good thing, as the natural term limit to our personal administrations, so that we can get out there and live...fully!
I believe the most powerful thing you can do is make death your friend. Let it advise you, guide you, make you stronger. It takes work, maybe most of a lifetime, but I believe it's well worth it, and certainly a much more sensible approach than railing against the bars of your emotional crib, screaming over not having enough.
"Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
- Deep Thought
The original statement was "death is wrong". That's a moral judgement imposed on a natural system. His correcting it by pointing out it's built in and so isn't a breakdown of the system (the only real possible application of the word 'wrong' to life in general) isn't at all an argument, just a rejection of the original flawed reasoning. And, to get pedantic, since the system being debated is nature itself, there's nothing wrong with using nature as it works to support your rejection.