.
Thanatophobia: "fear of death."

I'm opening this thread because I can't understand the concept of fearing the Grim Reaper.
I was raised in ancient Mexican values, and I don't see the avatar of Death as a monster, but as the "Catrina" (the noble lady): you don't fear her and you may even be disrespectful to what she represents, but you will be courteous when she asks you to guide her through a dance. Thus, Death is to me something neither good or bad: it's neutral, and just happens to be part of life. There are other ancient conceptions of death in Mexico, many of them even portraying her as inherently good, but I wasn't raised like that.

On the other hand, the occidental concept of death is the Grim Reaper: a monster that begins to pursue you from the moment you are born. You run away from it throughout your life, but the monster is infinitely patient and will eventually catch up to you and devour you. I thus can't understand how people then seem to philosophically rule their lives around fear of stopping living, rather than living their lives around enjoying life.

Does anybody want to enter conversation on this subject?

PS: before anybody asks: while I'm inherently pro-euthanasia, I'm not some wacko who just wants to find a bridge to jump from.

1326413
I don't really understand the popular LessWrong attitude of wanting to be immortal either. Partially it's that my culture (ironically the same background as LessWrong's founder Eliezer) teaches we should love life, live well, hope for long life, and then accept it when we die. After all, if you lived well, death is just the end, and if you lived horribly, death is a relief.

Missing out on Paradise or going to Hell would suck, but we believe almost all of us go to Paradise and there isn't really much of a Hell to worry about.

It's just a psychological twist some people have. They haven't read The Immortal Game and don't understand that Rule 1 of living forever is that you will eventually die.

1326437

After all, if you lived well, death is just the end, and if you lived horribly, death is a relief.

Probably not if you realize too late that you've been horribly wasting your life. Death would come way too soon then.
(Might edit the post later on and add more to it)

1326437

There's just so much to live for. Why would I want to not get the maximum possible experience from this life? I want to see the future. I want to see our triumph, our ruin, or our mediocrity. Why shouldn't I be able to?

I'm not necessarily afraid of death, but dying means being cut off entirely from this world, and I have a severe emotional and intellectual investment in this world.

Well, I don't speak for everyone, but here's my own views on the subject.

I don't believe in any sort of "avatar" of Death. I just see death as the cessation of life, that's all. I also don't believe in an afterlife. If I believed I was going to Heaven, Paradise, Nirvana, Valhalla, etc. when I died, I would be much less afraid of death, and any fear I had left would be irrational, and I'd know it.

With that in mind, I am scared of death. Mainly because I enjoy my life, and death means I don't get to live any more of it. There's nothing to really be scared of when it comes to the actual act of dying. Though I'm still scared of that, I know it's not a rational fear. It's a subtle distinction, but I'm less afraid of death, and more afraid of my life ending.

I don't want to be immortal in the literal sense of living forever. But I would like to live for significantly longer than I do now. I don't actually have a number. All I know is, I want to live longer now, and I don't anticipate that desire changing in the foreseeable future. And if I want to live longer, that logically means I don't want to die, which makes death a negative thing in my mind. If that changes at 60, or 130, or 7,034, so be it.

So, why do I not want to die? Simply put, I want to continue living. Living and dying are mutually exclusive. And I don't see any point in accepting the current lifespan if we can change it to what I believe is a better number, i.e, larger. To us, dying at, say, 80 may seem natural. But if you met a society of people who died at the age of 200, and aged slower than we did, our lives would probably seem tragically short to them, the same way we'd feel sorry for a society that died out at 35.

1326413

I think the idea is less that death itself is bad or immortality is good and more that the reality of death puts (unnecessary) limits on what we value. Learning is good, family is good, friends are good, helping others is good. All these basic drives of humanity would be aided if we could only live longer and maybe become wiser. I think the idea is that there should not be any upper limit on these things.

Death is really only part of this. It really seems to me that they want to overcome anything that limits these goals. Death, brain damage, frailty from old age, all these things mean the end of friends, end of self, end of family. In short, the end of that which is able to give meaning to life.

I was raised in ancient Mexican values, and I don't see the avatar of Death as a monster, but as the "Catrina" (the noble lady)

By your own admission you were raised to think this way. And it make perfect sense to do so. For all of history there has been nothing we could do about death or gradually losing our abilities, but we all become aware of its inevitability. Its much easier to deal with if its a friend, a period of slowing then rest.

But there is so much more good to be done.

If there comes a day when frailty and death can be set aside, I would understand the desire. Its not selfish (well, it would be for some people). Its mostly for altruistic reasons. To alleviate suffering, to grow knowledge, to form relationships.

1326413

I note that the word 'phobia' typically denotes mental disorders. I also note that fear is often considered a shameful emotion and saying that a group of people "seem to philosophically rule their lives around fear of stopping living, rather than living their lives around enjoying life" is quite insulting. If you really don't understand anti-death attitudes (not "fearing the Grim Reaper") and want to understand them, then framing the question like that isn't helping.

1327575
Yes, we all read that chapter of Harry Potter also.

As long as we're making references...

"What happens when you think like a Fremen?"

"You remember that you should never be in company that you wouldn't want to die with."

1327575>>1328032
In those regards, I believe that death is good in that it places time limits to the achievements of individuals. Destroy those time limits and people would become complacent, saying "let the experiment run for another year!decade!century" rather than analyzing their already sufficient measurements and publishing next month!year.
And well, being content with the certainty of death is definitely not the same as waiting eagerly for it: my four grandparents died pushing their 90s and none of them were ever concerned with their health. My mother is pushing her 70s and is in much better condition than many people in their fifties, and she is far from a health nut. I am a borderline health nut, and I will be very disappointed if I run out of steam before I'm 90.

1328378
For the first part: Phobia means fear. Fear is one of the pillars of the instinct of self-preservation. Fear is thus good, as long as it is measured and controlled. Measured and controlled. If it steps beyond reason, your healthy fear becomes a phobia.

For the second part: then how would I frame it otherwise? Let's just put a couple of examples for perspective:
(1) Half of Christianity takes fire and brimstone approaches to a religion based around an avatar who preached nothing but love and tolerance.
(2) For the secular side: how comes that people will let turnips rot for decades at a time inside long-term care hospitals?

1328921 Yeah, well, that chapter said it better than I could have, so I decided to borrow it to make my point.

1329199 I agree with you about the whole complacency thing. I think that's a large upside of death, but I also don't believe it's a large enough one to make it a net positive. There will still be incentives for speed, after all. Scientists will still want to publish first. Some will be altruists who are performing work that will do good for humanity, and the quicker it's published, the sooner it can start doing good. I predict there'd be a significant slowing down, but we wouldn't grind to a halt.

I also do believe that there is a point where death is better than life, such as people losing brain function irretrievably (who are for all intents and purposes already dead), or someone in the advanced stages of a painful/debilitating terminal illness.

The reason I value life over death is because I think most people's lives continuing is a good thing, a net positive. For some people, their life is no longer worth living and is extremely unlikely to ever improve. (The terminal illness example.) In that case, death is a reasonable option, as the reason I believe death is a bad thing no longer applies. To clarify, I believe that suicide is a bad option if your life has a realistic chance to improve. Terminal illness lacks that chance.

1329199

I'm glad to hear that you have likely inherited good genes. Good health is always welcome.

There is a word for people who eagerly await death, and I dont think that word describes you.

On the note of complacency, I agree the inevitability of death can certainly provide a motivation for some. But it can cause feelings of nihilism for others. I would say eternal youth (preventing death forever seems unlikely) seems like it could go both ways too. Sure some would become complacent (some already are). But some might take more time to be careful. Our planet would probably have been better off if we had considered the impact of widespread fossil fuel use instead of just focusing on the short term goals of profit.

Another question would be: who should decide what limits people face. We already pushed back the limits of our mortality with medicine and farming and housing. I don't think you believe we should undo those things (though I probably shouldn't tell you what you believe).

Correct me if im wrong, but if we already lived in a society where people do not grow old I dont think you would advocate killing people after a certain range of time (there I go assuming again). If this is true, I don't think its the particular timeframe you object to. Maybe you can help me pin down the exact issue you have with indefinite health that may lead to very long lifespans. Or maybe Im misunderstanding (and quiet possibly misrepresenting) your position.

1329485
I do not really believe that eternal youth would be negative for the individual. I do certainly believe that it would be nefarious for the society in general, though. Even disregarding population factors, the political shift to everliving people would 'rapidly' shift the political panorama to a gerontocracy, which is easily the worst political climate ever: people in general tend to idealize the past regardless of the realities of this past. The young tend to not idealize it so much, which conducts to change, which could be good or bad. Politicians would rapidly begun being valued over their age rather than over their general value. Political agendas would rapidly begin to shift to "lets return to the time when I was young and everything was perfect". Things could easily slide back all the way to an obscurantism, just like yesterday's Saracens (and last week's Moorish) became today's Islamists.

I'm in a hurry right now. I'll see if I put something else later.

1326413 Look, we're afraid of all sorts of trivial stuff. I'm afraid someone will ding the door of my car in the supermarket parking lot. I'm afraid my swimsuit may be a little bit too tight. I'm afraid I may have a gray hair. I'm afraid the book I'm reading is going to be a disappointment. I'm afraid I won't get the laundry finished before 5 PM. It seems silly to make an exception for death. What are you afraid of, then? Do you just mean that you're not afraid of anything?

1326437 I don't really understand the popular LessWrong attitude of wanting to be immortal either.
I don't understand the only logical alternative, which is wanting to die but not killing yourself. Don't think of it as wanting to be immortal. Think of it as not wanting to die right now, and expecting you'll feel the same one minute from now. Then use induction.

1333242
Again: we all read that chapter of Harry Potter.

The problem with your argument is that I have experienced moments when I wanted to die, and I expect to do so again.

1333828 The fact that you didn't kill yourself shows that you have not experienced moments where you in fact wanted to die. Methods of Rationality is not the origin of this argument. More importantily, the fact that Methods of Rationality mentioned an argument is not an argument against it. When someone rebuts you with an argument, and you reply, "I've heard that argument before", that is not a counter-argument.

1326413
Not scary at all, but it's embarrassing as hell that a set of memories and personality you might have invested so much in only has such an eye-rollingly finite capacity.

1334016
Ah, the revealed-preferences model. Suffice to say I find that model to be a load of bullshit, and you really shouldn't talk about immortality as it relates to suicidal depression if you've never been there.

1333242
Quite frankly, I'm afraid of dying before I have put my name in science or in engineering. With PhD's, Justices and renown artists as direct ascendants, I am very much afraid of forever being what my father's biography made of me: nothing but a freaking statistic in the life of a giant. I am currently aiming for something that not even my father ever attempted: proving that the screw propeller is inefficient, and providing an alternative. If I make it, my name will be the biggest thing in naval engineering since the screw propeller displaced the paddlewheel, and I will have enough honours for my father to choke on them.
Other than that, I'm acrophobic. I very much prefer not having to look down from a high place. This fear affects some choices of mine, but I have never let it control me (for example, I loathe glass elevators, but I can ride on them by focusing).

1334638

Your psychological state isn't a superior vantage point. Maybe it makes others unqualified to comment on your preferences, but then it also limits your ability to understand theirs. Have you considered this before dismissing the opposing viewpoint as a "psychological twist" or ignorance?

1335176

I suspect a connection between your desire for grand accomplishments and your attitude towards death. If life is a test of your worth, a quest to achieve, then maybe it's natural to view it as a closed story with a clearly defined ending. You fail, your life turns out to have no meaning and death is a relief. Or you succeed and then what do you do next? Take up another, even more difficult challenge? Eventually, you're bound to stumble and existential despair will catch up, so it's better to quit while you're ahead.

That's probably not something you would endorse as a description of your life philosophy, but, well, that's my knee-jerk reaction. As you can probably guess, I adamantly reject the notion of measuring your worth by accomplishments. I think this might somewhat explain differing attitudes about life and death, and I admit to feeling a certain amount of glee at telling you that maybe it's not we who are afraid of death but you who are afraid of life.

This also ties to the argument you've made earlier, that immortality would make people complacent and take away their motivation to do great things. That didn't sit well with me, either. Achievement isn't inherently valuable. You do it for fun or to help others. Being glad that everybody dies after a while because that way more papers get published misses the entire point of publishing papers. If we ever reach the point where we can afford to and want to be complacent, then let us become so. Humanity isn't obliged to measure up to some arbitrary standard of greatness.

1340606
All I ask is the consideration to not be preached-at by people who want something different from what I want. Yes, I do in fact want to die, not right now, but definitely at some point not too long after sennescence sets in. Even if you can treat the sennescence, it then becomes a matter of curing my various psychological and possibly psychiatric strangenesses. I honestly feel that doing so would be equivalent to personality-death anyway, since in large part, I am my crazy.

Therefore, any way you look at it, as LessWrong-ers define death, yes, I want to die.

1340606
Actually, both things are quite separate. Bad Horse asked "If not death, then what do you fear?" and I replied "proving my father right: that I'm not worthy of being his son". Quite frankly, that more a trauma than a fear, and drawing a line between the two of them is like me knowing that you a lactose intolerant and dislike Chinese food and trying to draw a line between the two facts.

1334638
To say that someone shouldn't be making an argument because they cannot understand something you believe to be important to that point... You can use that argument to simultaneously support contradictory viewpoints, so I would consider your argument invalid.

1334016
Would you have a counter-argument if book_burner said any of the following:
"Desires are not constant with respect to time, and my present desire not to kill myself is not indicative of past or future desires."
"Desires do not automatically come with the ability to accomplish desires, and my desire to kill myself does not imply that I am able to kill myself."
"Desires do not automatically come with the will to commit to satisfying desires, and my desire to kill myself does not imply that I am, or was at some point, actively trying to kill myself."

2548508

"Desires are not constant with respect to time, and my present desire not to kill myself is not indicative of past or future desires."
A true desire to kill yourself at just one time in the past could prevent your being here now. Often, clinical depression of that degree causes great weariness and a heightened sense of gravity and air pressure that makes action seem physically impossible. But I have encountered many people who talk about desiring immortality as foolishness, and none who have been in a continuous state of clinical depression too intense for them ever to kill themselves.

In any case, I call bullshit on his original argument, which is that desiring immortality makes no sense. The fact that he has had to add the proviso, "Well, it makes no sense if you suffer continual major clinical suicidal depression," means his original argument was bullshit.

"Desires do not automatically come with the ability to accomplish desires, and my desire to kill myself does not imply that I am able to kill myself."
Anyone who can get on the Internet and type messages has the ability. Worst case, they could find crazy people and ask them to kill them.

"Desires do not automatically come with the will to commit to satisfying desires, and my desire to kill myself does not imply that I am, or was at some point, actively trying to kill myself."
I speak only of net desire, the final preference after factoring everything in. Anything else is meaningless, since we all always have all possible desires, to some extent.

2551035
Before I go down tangents: I agree that book_burner's original post doesn't hold up, and that arguments against immortality rarely, if ever, hold for the same reason that arguments for/against suicide rarely, if ever, hold.

I'm adding on to Antsan's response (last paragraph in 2551194). You're assuming that conscious decisions can override instinctual ones if a persons conscious decision is the same as the "net desire". For a clear counterexample: If you assume that people who successfully commit suicide did so because they have a "net desire" to kill themselves, and if you assume that the person's brain can follow through on that "net desire", then that person should be able to stop his own heartbeat without the use of a gun, gas, poison, or other.

You can argue that heartbeats aren't under conscious control, and so they can't be used to follow through on conscious desires, but then you're left with the problem of people's bodies taking control from their conscious selves. This isn't even uncommon in everyday life (see sleepwalking, sleeptalking, dozing off, nodding off, staring contests, etc).

You're right that it's easy to find suicide methods online, but it's nearly impossible to find them without running into a large body of FUD arguments against suicide that frequently try to scare a person into living due to the risk of survival with permanent damage. I wouldn't say that a person "lacks the desire to die" just because he's afraid of the chance of living with permanent injuries and no ability to do anything about it.

You also have an underlying assumption of a rational mind when that mind wants to kill itself. Suicidal thoughts tend to be associated with highly emotional states, which tend to kill rational thought (pun not intended). For a similar phenomenon associated with highly emotional states, see marriage without a prenup.

2552027

For a clear counterexample: If you assume that people who successfully commit suicide did so because they have a "net desire" to kill themselves, and if you assume that the person's brain can follow through on that "net desire", then that person should be able to stop his own heartbeat without the use of a gun, gas, poison, or other.

This is not a clear counterexample, because a person is not a theorem-prover or other simple AI architecture. I understand what you are trying to say, but when I talk about "you", and your intentionality, I'm not talking about the entire system of you plus brain plus hormones plus body. I've gone over this in considerable detail in some old LessWrong posts, because people on LessWrong generally have an uncritical and simple notion of what their goals are, as if they were statements in propositional logic within a logic engine subject only to their conscious will. For the original statements to be coherent, we have to assume they are operating in some restricted subspace of a human's mental operations, so any statement about what "you want" refers only to that restricted subspace. It isn't exact, but if I say "you on net want X", that's no more vague than book_burner saying "I do not want immortality". I'm referring to whatever restricted system with intentionality he was originally talking about."

If when he says "I do not want immortality" he in fact means that the system composed of his mind plus his brain, body, and genes does not want immortality, he may be correct--but it would be unique (and perverse) for a human to talk that way.

2554058
I guess that puts us in the unfortunate position of deciding what the "I" is in all those statements. You say you understand what I was trying to say, but I'm a nut about accounting for likely translation errors, so I'll at least try to clarify. The thing that feels like it does things deliberately? The thing that tries to attach meaning to what parts of the mind/body does? The part that feels like it's acting on immediate net desires? If any of these don't make sense, then we have a translation problem, and the rest of this post should be ignored. If those all make sense, assume that part is called X.

What I was trying to get at in the "heartbeat not consciously controlled" paragraph was that X's control over the body can decrease to the point where X completely loses control over parts of, or the whole, body. I think the "staring contest" and the "nodding off" examples were the best ones there, where X is trying to control the body, succeeds for a short time, and eventually loses control. In the same way that X can completely lose its control over the body when it's too tired, I suspect (with no evidence other than personal anecdotes*) that X can completely lose control over the body when it expects to be very close to death.

*I thought this would be easy to google. I was wrong.

1327575
Basically, this. Harry said it adequately for me.

Although, in terms of the manner of death, it makes a difference to me. I'm scared of suffering and don't intend to change that about myself.

I'm a transhumanist too. I don't particularly intend to live forever in this shape. (My body is fat, the wrong sex, etc etc, so I've pretty much always enjoyed stories pertaining to change of one's form.)