More Active Posts
Front Page
Death: good?
 |
 10 Comments |
Cato Unbound’s monthly debate is up and running. This month, as if to remind us why so many Christmas songs are in a minor key, the debate is all about death:
Is aging an inevitability or a disease? Is death the ultimate tragedy or necessary to give life meaning? If we could live forever, should we want to? If much longer lives are within technological reach, is it our duty to do everything possible to achieve radical life extension, or is it instead our duty to reconcile ourselves to finitude?
The essays sound intriguing. The lead essay is titled “Old People Are People Too: Why It Is Our Duty to Fight Aging to the Death,” where scientist Aubrey de Grey says that it’s our responsibility to “fight aging to the death.” Reaction essays are “Ageless Mortals” by Diana Schaub, “Do We Need Death?” by Ronald Bailey, and ”Nature Knew What It Was Doing” by Daniel Callahan.
What we believe about death, obviously, is rooted in our philosophies of How We Got Here, What We’re Doing Here, and What Happens After We Die. Is death necessary?
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: culture, death, dying, health, medicine |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
One more diversion
This is probably too broad a topic to discuss here, but thanks for brining it up and providing the links.
Mr. Callahan’s title is intriguing. It seems impossible for non-theists to talk about issues like life and death without brining in some anthropomorphic force–in this case Nature. Makes you wonder!
Jack Kevorkian = Death is your friend.
If life in this world is only the prelude to the main event of life, we should not cling to it.
If life in this world is all there is, one comes to a different conclusion.
Though you could argue from the scripture that death is unnatural, was never intended for man by the Creator, yet it is belief in the scriptural Creator that takes the fear out of passing, the sting out of death.
It is the unbeliever of the God who is life and love who wrote, “Do not go gentle into that good night, rage, rage against the dying of the light.”
The title suggests that we think old people are not people if we don’t “fight aging to the death”. Why?
As human beings we find it difficult to accept that our lives end. 1. When one gets down to basics, the only thing we really have is our self, our ego, and that’s the only thing we really have to lose. So a religion that promises that in some way we get to hold on to it obviously has a strong appeal. 2. In life, the good are not always rewarded and the wicked are not always punished. That does not seem fair. A religion that promises to balance the books in some way even after this life ends, has a strong appeal.
A religion that then says, Hey, we’re all really bad–born that way become of an ancient ancestor, but if we believe and pray in the right way, we will will be forgiven is quite brilliant.
Mileage, etc.
Are there really that many christmas songs in a minor key? I’m going through a list in my head and its decidedly mixed major and minor.
A very poor article indeed. As a rule, men of science should not be the sole author of articles on ethics. His biggest problem is his fundamental premise that innocent people dying is inherently equally bad, when in fact it very much depends on the circumstances of the case: on average, the death of a five year-old child is more regrettable than that of an eighty-five year old senior.
It’s my poor understanding that aging occurs because each cell in the body is only able to divide a certain number of times. Apparently the purpose of this is to inhibit the growth of cancer. Thus, if we did not have that protection, we would not age, but we would eventually be killed by cancer at some point. Sounds like a pretty well-engineered solution we have.
It would be worth reviewing what Jonathan Swift (a very intelligent writer) has to say about the immortal Strulbrugs.
http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/jswift/bl-jswift-gull-3-10.htm