You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

jlp comments on Can we decrease the risk of worse-than-death outcomes following brain preservation? - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: Synaptic 21 February 2015 10:58PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (31)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jlp 22 February 2015 06:20:42PM 0 points [-]

Uh, plenty of born are born into worse-than-death situations already, at least by our standards, yet they generally make a go of their lives instead of committing suicide. We call many of them our "ancestors."

Can you elaborate? Your statement seems self-contradictory. By definition, situations "worse than death" would be the ones in which people prefer to kill themselves rather than continue living.

In the context of the original post, I take "worse-than-death" to mean (1) enough misery that a typical person would rather not continue living, and (2) an inability to commit suicide. While I agree many of our ancestors have had a rough time, relatively few of them have had it that hard.

Comment author: Matthew_Opitz 22 February 2015 09:09:16PM 3 points [-]

I'm guessing the author meant that the ancestral environment was one that many of us now would consider "worse than death" considering our higher standards of expectation for standard of living, whereas our ancestors were just perfectly happy to live in cold caves and die from unknown diseases and whatnot.

I guess the question is, how much higher are our expectations now, really? And how much better do we really have it now, really?

Some things, like material comfort and feelings of material security, have obviously gotten better, but others, such as positional social status anxiety and lack of warm social conviviality, have arguably gotten worse.