|
DontMockMySmock posted:Their solution, that I think is bullshit, is to say that But you are going to die, we all are. There is no immortality drug, and there never will be. So death can either be something that seen is a natural and necessary part of life, or it can be something we kick and scream against despite it being an inevitability. There is a long-standing argument between those two philosophies, whether death creates meaning for life, or if life has meaning despite death. I think arguments can be made both ways, but the show picked a side on this, and then followed it to the conclusion. You calling it a "euthanasia door" doesn't change the fact that it specifically wasn't that, and it was really a metaphor for how a life well-lived can create positivity that ripples out even after we die. (I think there are a few things the door represents, but that is certainly one of them) quote:Personally, since the first time they took the train to the Medium Place, I'd been hoping that the series ends with them invading the Good Place and killing God (who'd probably be called The First Architect or something) for the crime of creating the Bad Place, destroying the entire universe in the process. Or something like that. There was no chance of this ever being a part of the show, and none of this would have fit the tone, themes or style of what they were doing here. But I guess you can watch Golden Compass if you want that storyline. I had also originally hoped for an explanation of why the system was in place, but I can understand that touching on the idea of god or gods would have opened up a lot of cans of worms that would have detracted from the message. Tying this to a real religion (or excluding them) by describing a deity would have made the afterlife the point, when really the afterlife was the story conceit that allowed them to ask questions about morality and what it means to be a good person.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:TGP ends up sidestepping the issue, and sort of solving it by accident. But they never address it, and in a show about morality in the context of the Christian afterlife (I know they say it's not exactly like Christianity but i mean come on) it seems like a big oversight not to talk about the BIG question of the morality of the Christian afterlife. In Christianity, God sees sin as a binary state all humans exist in. To Christian God, you and Hitler are equally sinful and neither of you could possibly deserve to exist near his glory. The only human conclusion I could think for a show to examine is that God itself is evil. A great message and theme to explore... but probably not on network TV? Maybe watch Preacher? They do angst versus an obviously poo poo God much harder than TGP ever would.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Ishamael posted:But you are going to die, we all are. There is no immortality drug, and there never will be. So death can either be something that seen is a natural and necessary part of life, or it can be something we kick and scream against despite it being an inevitability. I mean, yeah probably, but not necessarily. There are people working on indefinite life extension right now. It's an incredibly difficult project, but with decades (or centuries) of technological advancement, there's no reason to believe we couldn't see human beings with indefinite lifespans. Death is a natural phenomenon with causes we can target. Most people who die of "old age" actually die of organ failure, or of illnesses their body has grown too weak to fight off. These are solvable problems, even if they might take a century to solve. Death isn't going to be avoidable for our generation, most likely, but it may be avoidable for future generations. Further, the fact that something is inevitable doesn't mean we need to conceive of it as good. It may be psychologically helpful to do so, but it could be harmful in other areas (e.g. clearsightedness about what we can do to solve the problem) if we conceive of inevitable bad things as secret good things that we ought to embrace. Like, back when infant mortality rates were very high, society was thick with myth and superstition about angels gathering innocent little children and taking them to Heaven, because the reality was too horrible to deal with. In response to that, we invented a fiction about how the lost kids were okay, actually. Lots of poems and songs about the Grim Reaper stewarding the young and taking care of them. Now that we've gotten infant mortality rates down to the point where it's comparatively rare for a child to die, we view the death of a child (rightly) as a horrible tragedy, and are less likely to engage in myth-making about how it's actually okay for children to die because they'll live on in God's kingdom. That myth-making definitely helped grieving parents, but it (most likely) was not an accurate way to look at the problem. It was a stopgap to help us cope with something horrible, not an end in itself. I think the same is true of discourse about "death is necessary and we should learn to embrace it", or worse still, "death gives life meaning". Death is really bad; ecologically it may be necessary, but all sorts of terrifying, awful things happen in ecosystems - which are amoral emergent systems, not ethical or experiential models we should emulate. As human beings, death takes the people we love from us, and will one day take us from the people we love. We should be trying to avoid it. In fact, most people try to avoid death for as long as possible, because we know that this is true. While inevitable death is a reality, sure, we can stick with the myth-making about death's beauty and necessity if we want, but we should also acknowledge that it's a comforting fiction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:I mean, yeah probably, but not necessarily. There are people working on indefinite life extension right now. It's an incredibly difficult project, but with decades (or centuries) of technological advancement, there's no reason to believe we couldn't see human beings with indefinite lifespans. Death is a natural phenomenon with causes we can target. Most people who die of "old age" actually die of organ failure, or of illnesses their body has grown too weak to fight off. These are solvable problems, even if they might take a century to solve. Death isn't going to be avoidable for our generation, most likely, but it may be avoidable for future generations. But death is still inevitable. Even if you can make yourself physically incapable of dying of sickness/old age you're still eventually going to lose the gamble on a car crash or whatever. And even if you assume immortality and invincibility well... Doesn't that sound like hell? Eternity is far, far, far more than we can think of. A 'mere' billion years is beyond all sense of scope. Even if you could be immortal and invincible what happens if, for example, the world suffers a catastrophe? Or what if we somehow master space travel and there's an accident, leaving you floating for an unknowable amount of time in the empty blackness of space? What happens when the suns fade? Would you want to be immortal and invincible if you were trapped on a dead Earth? A longer life is a good thing but at the end of that longer life is still an ending because no matter what you're eventually going to reach the end of everything. Premature and unwilling deaths are a tragedy but the key here is 'unwilling.' Not in suicidal methods but in the fact that there will come a point in infinity where infinity becomes a burden, not a reward. And that assumes you are the only immortal one. If everyone was immortal then it becomes loving horrifying because the worst people in the world are also immortal and you can bet they will be very good at exploiting that. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Feb 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:I mean, yeah probably, but not necessarily. There are people working on indefinite life extension right now. It's an incredibly difficult project, but with decades (or centuries) of technological advancement, there's no reason to believe we couldn't see human beings with indefinite lifespans. Death is a natural phenomenon with causes we can target. Most people who die of "old age" actually die of organ failure, or of illnesses their body has grown too weak to fight off. These are solvable problems, even if they might take a century to solve. Death isn't going to be avoidable for our generation, most likely, but it may be avoidable for future generations. Coming to terms with your own mortality is "a comforting fiction," as opposed to this post you just made, which is all hard scientific reason
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
Everyone knows the only outcome of an immortality drug is that some horrible rich people will live forever and the rest of us will toil for eternity for their benefit and amusement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 01:33
|
|
|
Arist posted:Coming to terms with your own mortality is "a comforting fiction," as opposed to this post you just made, which is all hard scientific reason Well...yeah? Indefinite life extension's totally plausible. It won't happen soon, but it is likely to happen at some point in the future. Is it immortality? No, not really, but it would change the role of death in our society from an ever-present and frequent thing to a relatively uncommon one. Ancillary Character posted:Everyone knows the only outcome of an immortality drug is that some horrible rich people will live forever and the rest of us will toil for eternity for their benefit and amusement. Realistically, any such treatment wouldn't be a single thing - it would involve cures for various illnesses, ubiquitous organ replacement, telomere modification, etc. That's not to say the rich couldn't hoard it - they could, and they would try - but it would be harder to keep a lid on all those treatments than if it were a single miracle drug. But you're right, life extension could cause vast inequality and open up a whole new genre of class inequality. The same is true of most major technological advances, though - the rich always get their hands on them first, then the citizens of wealthy countries, while the global poor are left out in the cold. We probably still want those technological advances to happen, though, and in the best case they're paired with social movements that fight to make them available to everyone. ImpAtom posted:But death is still inevitable. Even if you can make yourself physically incapable of dying of sickness/old age you're still eventually going to lose the gamble on a car crash or whatever. And even if you assume immortality and invincibility well... These are all good questions, and it's totally true that permanent immortality in the absence of human companionship or physical stimuli would be terrifying. But that's far beyond the remit of what current science can project; what we can project is long extensions to lifespan facilitated by regular access to advanced medical technology. If the infrastructure providing treatment ceased to exist, your lifespan would be finite at whatever milestone the most recent treatment had managed to achieve, so you wouldn't have to worry about living indefinitely in isolation. The two premises (permanent immortality and invulnerability vs. continuous life extension through iterative elimination of common causes of death) are really different, and I think there are different questions to be asked about the two of them. I think you're probably right that there's a point where infinity might become a burden; I also think that point is somewhere really, really far beyond the end of the natural human lifespan. Most people would give a lot for even ten more years of life. As such, I think the idea that death as we currently know it is both pleasant and desirable is mostly a way for us to cope with the fact that it's inevitable, and that it's going to cause us a great deal of sadness at some point in our lives. In the majority of cases, it isn't accurate or true to say that death is a good and pleasant thing; it's just a method of comforting ourselves through a reality we are presently unable to change. If we lived for millions of years and suffered from existential ennui on that scale, possibly all that would change. In the world as it presently is, though, most people don't want to die when they do, and their loved ones don't want to lose them. Death causes a great deal of material suffering. Platitudes about death being a journey or a necessary thing can soften the blow and make the pain tolerable, but they don't change that essential truth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 03:06
|
|
|
No, dude, you misunderstand. My point is that whatever bullshit you tell yourself to try to avoid having to come to terms with the cessation of your existence is arguably even more of a "comforting fiction" than "death is a part of life." I think, fundamentally, you're just promoting a way of avoiding ever having to process feelings and thoughts of grief, entropy, or existential fear. And I think that's incredibly unhealthy and childish.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
Arist posted:No, dude, you misunderstand. My point is that whatever bullshit you tell yourself to try to avoid having to come to terms with the cessation of your existence is arguably even more of a "comforting fiction" than "death is a part of life." I'm reconciled to it, my man. I think you're being weirdly hostile here? It's perfectly possible to process grief without coming to the conclusion that death is pleasant, desirable and necessary. Life extension is quite likely to happen at some point in the future. Indefinite life extension will likely follow. This probably won't be in either of our lifetimes, but the present science points that way. It would be good for future generations if they didn't have to cope with death in the same ways that we do. Like, do you disagree with that, fundamentally?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:I'm reconciled to it, my man. I think you're being weirdly hostile here? It's perfectly possible to process grief without coming to the conclusion that death is pleasant, desirable and necessary. Huge jump to say "we can replace organs" to "we can extend life indefinitely". At some point neurodegeneration shows up as something you can't simply replace. And maybe, eventually, that becomes a solvable problem too, but at that point we've made so many changes to our understanding of neurology and cognition that whatever conversation they're having barely resembles our own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 06:57
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Huge jump to say "we can replace organs" to "we can extend life indefinitely". At some point neurodegeneration shows up as something you can't simply replace. And maybe, eventually, that becomes a solvable problem too, but at that point we've made so many changes to our understanding of neurology and cognition that whatever conversation they're having barely resembles our own. Recent research using CRISPR-Cas has had some success in directly modifying the telomerase production of living tissue to prevent or ameliorate cell degeneration (or encourage cell reproduction). Studies have also edited, ablated, and tracked telomeres in live organisms with greater precision than has ever been possible before. CRISPR is huge, scary, and allows the sort of work to be done in vivo that would previously have been exclusively possible in vitro. This hasn't been done on brain tissue (to the best of my knowledge), but this kind of live subject cell alteration could be a model, going forward decades, for how you might extend the lifespan of an organ that you can't replace. There are a lot of problems with it still, like the fact that inducing telomerase production can also cause the development of cancer cells, and (for neuroregeneration) the fact that our understanding of the brain's structure is still seriously limited, but we're in the very early days of an era of medicine where it's possible to tinker with individual cells and genes in adult, living organisms. There's a framework for viable alternatives to transplants that will probably become a lot more advanced within the next few decades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 07:42
|
|
|
Whether or not we succeed in achieving immortality doesn't change Android's points. It's a euthanasia door.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 12:00
|
|
|
If we go with that analogy then euthanasia in order to stop eternal torture isn't bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 12:03
|
|
|
Immortality in the physical world is a fundamentally different beast from immortality in the afterlife regardless of how you feel about death as a philosophical concept. Even if the science is there at an actually useable level, it would still be incredibly unethical to do anything with it unless you also have a solution for how the planet is supposed to sustainably support an ever increasing human population that's collectively decided that death isn't a thing anymore. And that's assuming that human civilization hasn't already collapsed due to global climate catastrophe before we reach whatever pie in the sky breakthrough you think is coming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
The major problem with immortality on Earth is, imagine all the horrible people in charge living forever. Because the rich will get that tech first and they’ll hoard it as much as they can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:The major problem with immortality on Earth is, imagine all the horrible people in charge living forever. Because the rich will get that tech first and they’ll hoard it as much as they can. I think this is what "Altered Carbon" is about?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:Life extension is quite likely to happen at some point in the future. Indefinite life extension will likely follow. This probably won't be in either of our lifetimes, but the present science points that way. It would be good for future generations if they didn't have to cope with death in the same ways that we do. Like, do you disagree with that, fundamentally? the science is often wrong in terms of social ramifications of technology, and we don't know of any undying organisms with the same level of complexity as ourselves. the only viable immortality is complete transhumanism and, placed in a social context, i don't want to live forever with human-like creatures who will continue to hoard wealth and power beyond generations. like imagine a world were jeff bezos never dies but continues to get richer, or a world where gilded age or earlier aristocrats from centuries ago never relinquished their wealth or power. there are some horrifying ramifications to endless human life, far worse than the natural fear of death inherent in all living things what kind of hosed up world is it if you're born a serf to an immortal lord who has been on the throne for ten thousand generations and you will never escape that social position? why would you assume that immortality would be distributed equally? Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Feb 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
If the rich no longer have natural death then feel free to gift it to them instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:a world where gilded age or earlier aristocrats from centuries ago never relinquished their wealth or power We might be able to cure death from old age, but I bet it will take a few more millennia to cure 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
if the only thing the immortal wealthy have to fear are riots and targeted violence from poor immortals then the logical choice for them is to impose population control on the lower classes like the nuts and bolts of immortality is one thing, but the practical application of immortality among human beings is pretty ugly unless we assume some sort of "i would simply make having problems illegal" level of avoiding the obvious outcomes
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
quote:Death is really bad This isn't as self-evident as people who say it think it is. Plus, I also outright disagree. Death is dope. The bad part of death is that you are sad when someone you love does it and also some people are super ascared of it for themselves. Other than that, it's pretty much a very, very, good thing. I love to eat, and live, and breathe and death is fundamentally a major player in all of those things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:I'm reconciled to it, my man. I think you're being weirdly hostile here? It's perfectly possible to process grief without coming to the conclusion that death is pleasant, desirable and necessary. I do. First, that will never happen. Creating immortality through science will never occur. Second, death is part of life. Literally everything dies, even the universe itself. Painting death as bad is just turning a natural process into a moral evil, which is arbitrary and unhealthy. Death is neither good nor bad, it just is. But how we face death can be a good, if we can learn to process it in a healthy way that helps to drive us to do good for others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:the science is often wrong in terms of social ramifications of technology, and we don't know of any undying organisms with the same level of complexity as ourselves. the only viable immortality is complete transhumanism and, placed in a social context, i don't want to live forever with human-like creatures who will continue to hoard wealth and power beyond generations. like imagine a world were jeff bezos never dies but continues to get richer, or a world where gilded age or earlier aristocrats from centuries ago never relinquished their wealth or power. there are some horrifying ramifications to endless human life, far worse than the natural fear of death inherent in all living things I mean, yeah, this is a horrifying and plausible scenario, but I don't think it's totally inevitable. Almost certainly the rich would get their hands on life extension technology first, and would have the easiest access to it, but that's true of all major technological advancements. It's down to policy that, like you say, is mostly orthogonal to the actual nuts and bolts of life extension whether we'd end up with a fair society or a nightmare. If this technology makes its advent in a world where (for example) we have wealth/estate taxes reducing asset inequality, or where a socialised healthcare system guarantees universal provision of these treatments, maybe we don't end up with a society run by immortal plutocrats. If it makes its advent in a libertarian hellscape that worships the free market and ~wealth creators~, yeah, you're gonna end up with immortal plutocrats accreting all possible assets to themselves forever. Like, right now, Jeff Bezos' heirs (whoever they end up being) will just inherit his wealth when he dies, and while the person of Jeff Bezos will cease to be, the monopolisation of assets he currently enjoys won't. It'll just pass into a new pair of hands, and likely they'll use it in much the same way he does. The concentration of wealth is the problem as much as the specific person who owns the money, so that person sticking around for a long time may not make a huge amount of material difference. What could make a difference is pro-social economic policies!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
Death is inevitable and we have to make our peace with it, but I do find attempts to frame this as romantic or necessary for happiness to exist as banal and offensive. It's the hand we're dealt and we have to make the best of it, but don't front like it's awesome that everyone I care about will be dirt someday and that all my experiences will be lost. The afterlife is a popular mythological concept for a reason. Ain't no one wants to get old and die.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
My take on the door isn't that they're dying. I think they're becoming angels. We know they aren't done with their journey, and when we finally get to see what happens, Eleanor returns to Earth to help guide Kurt Braunohler into a being a tiny bit nicer. I don't think she's absorbed into him, but she's going to hang out with him for a while, make him less of a suburban trashbag.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Finished the podcast. “I’m Marc Evan Jackson. I played Shawn.” 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Finished the podcast. “I’m Marc Evan Jackson. I played Shawn.” Is it worth listening to the whole archives? If I'm looking for time to fill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Finished the podcast. “I’m Marc Evan Jackson. I played Shawn.” "Now - and make this one count - go do something good"
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Is it worth listening to the whole archives? If I'm looking for time to fill. Yes, they not only discuss the themes and writing, but you also hear a lot about the technical aspects of making a show like this (lots of locations, lots of visual effects) compared to a regular sitcom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Is it worth listening to the whole archives? If I'm looking for time to fill. Oh absolutely. Usually MEJ gets 1 person from in front of the camera (actors), and one from behind. Writers, directors, costume designers, art dept, PAs, even the animal trainer! It’s always funny and informative, and Marc is an excellent host. He’s as much a fan of the show as he is a part of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Is it worth listening to the whole archives? If I'm looking for time to fill. It does help if you have the episode they're talking about fresh in your mind, but yes the archives are absolutely worth listening to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
Ishamael posted:I do. You are correct death is neither good or bad. But also this fits with nothing matters. Might as well kill yourself. Being certain that indefinite lifespans can't happen through science seems extremely naive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
Unless an immorality serum comes with a sterilization component it'll kill the human race faster that just about anything else we've come up with unless it's discovered long after we master interstellar colonization
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
cosmicjim posted:You are correct death is neither good or bad. But also this fits with nothing matters. Might as well kill yourself. really doubting your command of philosophy both material and abstract, here as thought experiments go "nobody HAS to die" requires a tremendous amount of fantastical assumptions like "also we will ban inequality" and "matter replicators can make food" in order to make it anything other than a complete nightmare
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
I'm not sure I'm fully understanding this argument of "we don't have to come to terms with our own death because at some point science might invent clinical immortality." To me that seems like a sociological diversion to what's otherwise a very psychological and personal issue. For the time being, at least, we have no reason to believe that death is anything other than inevitable, so what is the proper way for individuals--not a culture or society, just individuals--to come to terms with that inevitability?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:I'm not sure I'm fully understanding this argument of "we don't have to come to terms with our own death because at some point science might invent clinical immortality." To me that seems like a sociological diversion to what's otherwise a very psychological and personal issue. For the time being, at least, we have no reason to believe that death is anything other than inevitable, so what is the proper way for individuals--not a culture or society, just individuals--to come to terms with that inevitability? I'd say that we absolutely do have to come to terms with our own deaths, because it's very unlikely any such thing will happen while anyone in this conversation is alive - but the fact that it might one day be possible does provoke questions about platitudes like "death is necessary to give life meaning" or "death is a natural (and therefore good) thing". My view is that ideas like these would be distinctly less popular if death wasn't inevitable, and that for most people, they're essentially a way of making it easier to cope with the emotional pain attendant on death. Materially, they usually aren't true. We can imagine a world where people wouldn't care for these sayings at all when we think ahead to a time when death by ageing, for instance, is optional - at which point "you should voluntarily die to give your life meaning" would almost certainly become a fringe view.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 08:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Did Jason really ever do ANYTHING after the first season? He made good comedy relief and this is a comedy show so it's fine, but it feels like he rapidly became totally irrelevant to any of the plot. He's more emotionally intelligent than the rest of them, and his stories about his dance crew often contain the wisdom the crew is looking for. I just rewatched the Time Knife one, and Jason convinces the Judge to take a tour of Earth to see how hosed up it is with a story about his dance crew. He's above all the stakes because he's too dumb to understand how much danger they're in, so he's good comic relief.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 14:55
|
|
|
Android Blues posted:I'd say that we absolutely do have to come to terms with our own deaths, because it's very unlikely any such thing will happen while anyone in this conversation is alive - but the fact that it might one day be possible does provoke questions about platitudes like "death is necessary to give life meaning" or "death is a natural (and therefore good) thing". You're going off on a tangent again. If someone you knew was going to die within the next year, how would you help them come to terms with that death without using the platitudes you mention?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:You're going off on a tangent again. If someone you knew was going to die within the next year, how would you help them come to terms with that death without using the platitudes you mention? That's a big question! I probably wouldn't use those phrases personally, but if some people find them helpful, there's nothing wrong with that. If these platitudes are comforting for people facing up to their mortality, that's fine. There's a lot to be said for comforting ideas that aren't strictly true. But it's important to point out that they probably aren't strictly true, and that we rely on them because they're the best tool we have in a difficult situation. If you wanted to put together a model for guiding people through terminal illness that didn't rely on bromides about death being necessary and good - well, I'm not a psychologist or a counsellor, but reminding people of the meaning their life has already had, that they are loved, that they've achieved a lot of things to be proud of, might be a good start. (I don't think I was going off on a tangent, btw? You asked me to explain my position, and I did.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
It's kind of weird to frame our morality in this hypothetical of a magic immortality somehow arising (oh but it's science somehow..okay). Immortal beings fundamentally, in every way, wouldn't even be humans. Human morals and ethics are for humans. We tend to not moralize other species' behaviour, why do it to impossible non-humans we imagine?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 20:02
|
|