# Philsosophical Question/Dilemma



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

If you had the option to know in advance the *date* *certain *of your own death, would you choose to use it? Or, do you think that we are better off as things now stand, not really knowing, at least in most cases short of terminal illnesses, catastrophic accidents etc., etc.?
Do you believe that as a species in general, humans would be "happier"--or at least more "secure"--were we to be armed with such fore-knowledge or not? Would it--for example--spur us on to live more meaningful and purpose-driven lives were we to be empowered with such a graphic and clear understanding of just how finite and short our sojourn on this earth in fact really is?
As one who has been grappling with this question/dilemma for some time and has yet--if ever--been able come to no firm conclusion regarding whether the species--or indeed, I--would indeed be better served having this awareness, I would indeed most certainly welcome my fellow members' thoughts and inputs on this subject.
Thanks.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

I would probably live a happier life if i knew when my mother-in-law would perish.

Apart from that, if astronomers were to compute the exact 0.9999 impact date of an unstoppable asteroid, depending on how close the ETA, it may completely change my life in terms of time management.

I would probably try to maximize the amount of pleasure i could experience before death, because not much else is important if all humanity were to vanish. but it's difficult to predict how everyone else would react; it might create complete chaos.

If someone tried to predict my death (as an individual), i'd just laugh and carry on.

Edit: off-topic: everytime my post count reaches a power of 2, eg. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, ..., 512; i always wait a few days before posting again, because powers of 2 are beautiful and i like them. yesterday i made a wish: that my post count would freeze at 512, because 1024 is so far away... but today my wish came true!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I don't hold any strong opinions at the moment on the thought of knowing a particular date of death, but I think people need to accept more and talk more (especially to children) about the very fundamental concept of mortality. The problem is that children are so often promised immortality by reward of life in another world after death in this one. How can a person really value their time on this planet when it's made to look insignificant compared to the rewards in death? Even if people still go on believing that they never have to truly die, they still have to learn to cherish the value of life on earth, and to value the rights of other people to seek happiness without judgement.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Polednice, Spot on indeed! I think one of the big problems we in the West face in trying to effectively fight the Islamic terrorists is their firm and undying--sorry!--belief that in dying as "martyrs" for their cause, they are looking at a wonderful, blissful life in the hereafter? How does one possibly combat--and, even more to the point--"triumph"--over that kind of ideology?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

samurai said:


> Polednice, Spot on indeed! I think one of the big problems we in the West face in trying to effectively fight the Islamic terrorists is their firm and undying--sorry!--belief that in dying as "martyrs" for their cause, they are looking at a wonderful, blissful life in the hereafter? How does one possibly combat--and, even more to the point--"triumph"--over that kind of ideology?


That is, of course, a fundamental aspect of all monotheistic religion; not just Islamic extremism. Most religious people feel the human instinct to be attached to this world and delight to some extent, if not decadently, in its material pleasures, but it has long been said in Christianity that a friend of this world is an enemy of Jesus, and, really, any system that offers eternal bliss after death can only ever hope and wish for this world to end as soon as possible.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

What's interesting about this discussion is when you ask "what changes?". Somewhat similar to this:









Anyway . . .
Life ends --> that's it, no heaven or hell --> therefore, get the best out of this life

Life ends --> heaven exists --> therefore, do your best to get into heaven

Life ends --> heaven exists --> therefore, get the best out of this life and do your best to get into heaven

Life ends --> I don't know if there's an afterlife --> therefore, I'll just get the best out of it

Life ends --> I don't know if there's an afterlife --> therefore, I'll try to find whether there is or isn't

Life ends --> I don't know if there's an afterlife --> therefore, I'll try to find whether there is or isn't while getting the best out of it

Life ends --> heaven exists --> heaven is boring --> ?

Life doesn't end --> ?

I don't know.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> What's interesting about this discussion is when you ask "what changes?". Somewhat similar to this:
> 
> Anyway . . .
> Life ends --> that's it, no heaven or hell --> therefore, get the best out of this life
> ...


that's called _le pari de Pascal_


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Philip said:


> that's called _le pari de Pascal_


Well, I was more concerned with what causes the change in a person's attitude towards these problems rather than the actual consequences of the problem, which is what Pascal's wager is more concerned with.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Here's a prime example I just found randomly while looking at other stuffz:


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

anyone basing their life on what comes after life is an idiot.

edit: i hope i live to see the day where humans leave earth to create a smarter colony somewhere else... given that i qualify, of course!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Well the question is a bit absurd. If I learn I will die on my 40th birthday, what exactly happens when I point a gun at my head today and pull the trigger? But to answer your question, no, I would not want to know my death date.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

I personally would not wish to know the exact time of my death. It would definately depress me whether it was tomorrow or in 50 years. Since I do not know there is always the hope that I could live to 100. (I better stop eating all of the Big Macs though if I want to make it that long) 

I do think it would cause people to act differently. People who knew that they were to die soon would probably live better more fufilling lives and people who had a lot of time left would probably procrastinate. I think things are the way they are for a reason. If they were the other way around our lives would probably be even more chaotic.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

TrazomGangflow said:


> I do think it would cause people to act differently. People who knew that they were to die soon would probably live better more fufilling lives and people who had a lot of time left would probably procrastinate. I think things are the way they are for a reason. If they were the other way around our lives would probably be even more chaotic.


I think one of our greatest tasks is to teach people that 100 years is _not_ a long time and none of it should be wasted. You face total obliteration after that simple century, though billions of years have preceded you and billions of years will follow. 100 years is so minutely insignificant that it is so incomprehensibly precious.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2012)

I absolutely would want to know the date of my death. There's a lot of planning that can be done accordingly. Like how to tell my son as much as I can before then.


----------



## skalpel (Nov 20, 2011)

Is it concievable that a person could find out that they are due to die in the next few days, become so terrified of a painful and sudden death as the hour draws near that they fulfill the prophecy by actually killing _themselves_? Cause of death: knowing time of death.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I think one of our greatest tasks is to teach people that 100 years is _not_ a long time and none of it should be wasted. You face total obliteration after that simple century, though billions of years have preceded you and billions of years will follow. 100 years is so minutely insignificant that it is so incomprehensibly precious.


This is why religion will always be appealing.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Polednice said:


> I think one of our greatest tasks is to teach people that 100 years is _not_ a long time and none of it should be wasted. You face total obliteration after that simple century, though billions of years have preceded you and billions of years will follow. 100 years is so minutely insignificant that it is so incomprehensibly precious.


Yes, but still we need to look for the *causes* of ageing. People who live to be over the age of about 95 aren't exactly healthy, but they no longer seem to age. Why is that? What's the explanation for progeria, a rare genetic condition in humans that causes premature ageing? Why do Siamese fighting fish die of old age at about three years, while similarly sized catfish can live for thirty years or more?

Here's an interesting article on the subject. There's probably more than one cause for ageing, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if shortening of telomeres turns out to be the major one, because it makes sense:

*http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/traits/telomeres/*

As to the question of whether I want to know when I'm going to die, the answer is no, until I become terminally ill. Then, I should have the right to decide on the exact date and time.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I've been getting all depressed today. It's not fair! I want to see the 23rd century!


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Polednice said:


> I've been getting all depressed today. It's not fair! I want to see the 23rd century!


No problem. Subjectively, you won't age any more slowly, or experience the passage of time any differently, but if you travel to a nearby star and back at almost the speed of light (calculating things exactly), you could indeed live to see the 23rd century.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Couchie said:


> Well the question is a bit absurd. If I learn I will die on my 40th birthday, what exactly happens when I point a gun at my head today and pull the trigger? But to answer your question, no, I would not want to know my death date.


You would survive and live like a plant until you're 40.

Isn't there a short story that goes like this?


----------



## prettyhippo (Apr 19, 2011)

Personally, I wouldn't want to know the date of my death. I tweak out under any kind of timed pressure so whatever time I had remaining would be very unproductive. But I think if everyone in the world were told at an early age, like when they're children, then it would just become a norm and part of life. Which sounds kind of weird I guess, so I'll just leave it at I don't know.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'd actually quite like to know _how_ I'll die, even if not when, just to put my paranoias to rest.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

I think it would drive me crazy to know the date of my death. I would more likely be depressed rather than motivated to use remaining time. Not sure why is that, I guess it differs from one person to another. But one thing is sure worth thinking about:

Because we don't know when we will die, we get to think of life as an inexhaustible well. Yet everything happens only a certain number of times, and a very small number really. How many more times will you remember a certain afternoon of your childhood, some afternoon that is so deeply a part of your being that you can't even conceive of your life without it? Perhaps four or five times more, perhaps not even that. How many more times will you watch the full moon rise? Perhaps twenty. And yet it all seems limitless.

- Paul Bowles


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

samurai said:


> As one who has been grappling with this question/dilemma for some time and has yet--if ever--been able come to no firm conclusion regarding whether the species--or indeed, I--would indeed be better served having this awareness, I would indeed most certainly welcome my fellow members' thoughts and inputs on this subject.
> Thanks.


You're probably thinking too much on this matter. It's such a hypothetical that doesn't really serve any productive purpose. On a much more realistic level, it might well be more productive with regards to the choices that you have in life if you acknowledge the _very real_ possibilities of say, being injured or killed in a vehicle accident/travelling, being told of a terminal illness of yourself and or a loved one. That's my take. 

P.S.
In anycase, most countries would publish their own (actuarial) mortality tables based on population statistics to estimate the probability of mortality and future live expectancies. These are very accurate estimates that are revised every few years or so.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

samurai said:


> If you had the option to know in advance the *date* *certain *of your own death, would you choose to use it? Or, do you think that we are better off as things now stand, not really knowing, at least in most cases short of terminal illnesses, catastrophic accidents etc., etc.?...


Ha ha, reminds me of an episode of the UK sci-fi cult comedy series_ The REd Dwarf_. Something to do with gazpacho soup in that episode about similar issue, one of the characters having access to this kind of information (a video of his own death in the future - well, it was sci-fi, where anything can happen).

In short, no I would not like to know such information. It's enough to know that life expectancy here is about 70-75 years on average, depending what gender you are. Women get 5 more years! I suppose if one tries to live as healthy as possible & maybe with a bit of luck, one can reach that age & maybe a bit beyond. I think quality of life is important also, not only quantity...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> What's interesting about this discussion is when you ask "what changes?". Somewhat similar to this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Another option:

This person comes back to life --> life ends --> watch terrible American sitcoms for eternity in hell while a grey parrot perches itself on the end of your nose for three months --> therefore, get the best out of your life before she turns up


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I suppose the more immediate, real-world manifestation of this question regards the upcoming possibility of having one's genome sequenced for $1000. On a practical level, being able to identify all your potential frailties and vulnerabilities to certain diseases might (depending on what they are) make your insurance sky-rocket. They might also make you terribly paranoid, or give you the incentive to be pro-active in making lifestyle choices to guard against your most likely illnesses. Would you want to know everything that could be wrong with you?


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Yes.

The difference with OP being that it's about what could happen, not what will. You can fight what could happen.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

In one of my favorite Asimov novels, "A Pebble in the Sky," in which earth is the setting but is mostly radioactive and a small and neglected part of a large galactic empire, there is a limit to the population that is helpfully enforced with the aid of euthanasia at age 60. He didn't really explore the psychology in this, but I found it horrifying when I first read it. I must say this is interesting to think about. There is also a hint of the reverse in another one of his novels. The Spacers in "the Caves of Steel" live over 300 years, and as a culture, they accomplish little that is revolutionary and actually end up regressing in a lot of ways because their lives have so much leisure.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Rasa said:


> Yes.
> 
> The difference with OP being that it's about what could happen, not what will. You can fight what could happen.


I totally agree, though I know that there are many people who would rather wilfully keep themselves in the dark. I can't understand that mentality.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> In one of my favorite Asimov novels, "A Pebble in the Sky," in which earth is the setting but is mostly radioactive and a small and neglected part of a large galactic empire, there is a limit to the population that is helpfully enforced with the aid of euthanasia at age 60. He didn't really explore the psychology in this, but I found it horrifying when I first read it. I must say this is interesting to think about. There is also a hint of the reverse in another one of his novels. The Spacers in "the Caves of Steel" live over 300 years, and as a culture, they accomplish little that is revolutionary and actually end up regressing in a lot of ways because their lives have so much leisure.


That seems like an unnecessary policy for a _galactic_ empire! Just turn some rogue planet into a care home and dump all the oldies on it!


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

That probably wouldn't work for me as I'd instantly retire from the world.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Didn't we learn anything from Doris Day?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

kv466 said:


> That probably wouldn't work for me as I'd instantly retire from the world.


The people of earth have tremendous pride for being members of the 'origin planet' and most of the galaxy regards them as lesser humans anyway, due to complicated history and not believing their wild claims about being the origin of humanity. Emigration is not typically thought of, may even be restricted.

Also the Spacers are part of a different novel. You'll just have to read it I guess .


----------

