Immortality vs. Society (2016)

Re:Immortality vs. Society (2016) by 1penny42cents on Sunday February 21, 2021 @03:19AM (#26211803)

This argument is only valid from an egocentric perspective. It's like saying when you close your eyes, the world ceases to exist because you can't see it. I want my loved ones to be happy when my eyes are closed, as much as I want them to be alive and well when I die. There is something left behind.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Immortality vs. Society (2016) by thefounder on Sunday February 21, 2021 @03:29AM (#26211840)

>> I want my loved ones to be happy when my eyes are closed

Well, they will die too so they won't do any better..or even worse they will die before you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Immortality vs. Society (2016) by 1penny42cents on Sunday February 21, 2021 @03:40AM (#26211897)

A song isn't worthless because it ends. The value of a life is more than its end result.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Immortality vs. Society (2016) by thefounder on Sunday February 21, 2021 @03:46AM (#26211931)

Well if the song dies/it's lost it's pretty much worthless.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Immortality vs. Society (2016) by 1penny42cents on Sunday February 21, 2021 @03:51AM (#26211959)

I don't think anyone really evaluates a song on whether they think it'll survive the lifespan of the universe. It's a very narrow definition of value.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Immortality vs. Society (2016) by thefounder on Sunday February 21, 2021 @08:28AM (#26213291)

There would be no song to evaluate once it dies/is forgotten. Of course it could have some value for the people that heard it but that values goes to zero once they die as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]