Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Nick Bostrom wrote:
> > You might say that our human morality - our desire that *we* survive
> > - is an arbitrary effect of our evolutionary history. Maybe so, but I
> > don't see the relevance. If our morality is in that sense arbitrary,
> > so what? You could say that the laws of physics are arbitrary, but
> > that does not make them any less real. Don't forget that "moral" and
> > "good" are words in a human language. It's not surprising, then, if
> > their meaning is also in some way connected to human concepts and
> > anthropocentric concerns.
> But what about the response coming from most of the people i talk to who
> reject the idea of avoiding death and seem disgusted with the idea of even
> living any 'longer than you should', maybe even sometimes using terms like
> 'morally wrong'? Is surviving really a 'good' thing? They obviously don't
> think so. I see no common all-of-humanity ground to create an objective
> morality set.
True. Since heaven is supposed to be a place to aspire to belong after death, people feel it is wrong to want to avoid going there. Wanting to be immortal is kind of a cosmic truancy, or failure to appear for Judgement, to such people. A damnable crime. Besides that, others who try to be modest get survivor guilt that people that they think are better then they are die. Of course most people feel the same way about other people who cheat on their taxes (of course, not themselves). This could be a good way to spread a pro-immortality meme: Its your life, you earned it, for nature to want to take it back when you are not done with it is nothing but taxation without representation. Viva la revolucione! Lets go throw some Hemlock in the harbor!