[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 12 KB, 250x220, 1591814081085.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15857997 No.15857997 [Reply] [Original]

>All I hear is how to live longer, richer, and, of course, more laden with electronic gadgets. We are not the first generation to believe that the worst possible thing to befall us is death. But for the ancients, the worst possible outcome was not death, but a dishonorable death, or even just a regular one. For a classical hero, dying in a retirement home with a rude nurse and a network of tubes coming into and out of your nose would not be the attractive telos for a life.
>And, of course, we have this modern illusion that we should live as long as we can. As if we were each the end product. This idea of the “me” as a unit can be traced to the Enlightenment. And, with it, fragility.
>Before that, we were part of the present collective and future progeny. Both present and the future tribes exploited the fragility of individuals to strengthen themselves. People engaged in sacrifices, sought martyrdom, died for the group, and derived pride from doing so; they worked hard for future generations.
>Sadly, as I am writing these lines, the economic system is loading future generations with public governmental debt, causing depletion of resources, and environmental blight to satisfy the requirements of the security analysts and the banking establishment (once again, we cannot separate fragility from ethics).
>As I wrote in Chapter 4, while the gene is antifragile, since it is information, the carrier of the gene is fragile, and needs to be so for the gene to get stronger. We live to produce information, or improve on it. Nietzsche had the Latin pun aut liberi, aut libri—either children or books, both information that carries through the centuries.
>I was just reading in John Gray’s wonderful The Immortalization Commission about attempts to use science, in a postreligious world, to achieve immortality. I felt some deep disgust—as would any ancient—at the efforts of the “singularity” thinkers (such as Ray Kurzweil) who believe in humans’ potential to live forever. Note that if I had to find the anti-me, the person with diametrically opposite ideas and lifestyle on the planet, it would be that Ray Kurzweil fellow. It is not just neomania. While I propose removing offensive elements from people’s diets (and lives), he works by adding, popping close to two hundred pills daily. Beyond that, these attempts at immortality leave me with deep moral revulsion.

>> No.15858005

>It is the same kind of deep internal disgust that takes hold of me when I see a rich eighty-two-year-old man surrounded with “babes,” twentysomething mistresses (often Russian or Ukrainian). I am not here to live forever, as a sick animal. Recall that the antifragility of a system comes from the mortality of its components—and I am part of that larger population called humans. I am here to die a heroic death for the sake of the collective, to produce offspring (and prepare them for life and provide for them), or eventually, books—my information, that is, my genes, the antifragile in me, should be the ones seeking immortality, not me.
>Then say goodbye, have a nice funeral in St. Sergius (Mar Sarkis) in Amioun, and, as the French say, place aux autres—make room for others.

>> No.15858027

>>15857997
I do.

>> No.15858085
File: 178 KB, 1366x768, Spread Memes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15858085

>>15857997
No

>> No.15858105
File: 1.39 MB, 1301x654, rock-land.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15858105

Information or computronium? Who was right?

>> No.15858114

>>15857997
He's an imbecile.

>> No.15858156

Ted has good shit on this too... how the people who obsess with immortality are the ones whose power process is repressed

>> No.15858181

>>15858114
why do u say so?

>> No.15858186

>>15858181
Arab larping as a Phoenician.

>> No.15858205

>>15857997
have fun rotting in the dirt while i transcend into orgasmic computronium, bitch

>> No.15858239

>>15858205
The computer does not want you.

>> No.15858251

>>15858186
And?
Do you expect to agree with everything someone says? Can't you separate the wheat from the chaff?

>> No.15858306

>>15857997
Absolutely based.

>> No.15858379

>>15858114
>imbécile and débile are both used by anglos
cute

>> No.15858401

>>15857997
Does he think our ideology changed or the tech caused our ideology to change? What’s the driving force he’s arguing against?