this post was submitted on
172 points (85% like it)
206 up votes 34 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 13 comments

[–]SimilarImage 5 points6 points ago

[–]fridgeridoo 1 point2 points ago

These bots are awesome

[–]UbERhippo24 1 point2 points ago

You spelled "Jeffries" wrong. It's Jefferies.

[–]Billards[S] 1 point2 points ago

His SAG name is 'Jefferies', his real name is 'Jeffries'. TIL.

[–]Orsenfelt 0 points1 point ago

His real name is Geoff Nugent.

In Britain (and the rest of the world) he is Jim Jeffries.

In the USA his name is Jim Jefferies, because SAG requires a unique name and there was already a Jeffries on the books.

[–]americanairman469 0 points1 point ago

I couldn't help but to read this with his accent.

[–]glitterbypink 0 points1 point ago

better with accent.

[–]DanielPeverley -3 points-2 points ago

I disagree with the sentiment. Death is a terrible, sad thing, and no amount of philosophizing will change that. Atheists should do their best to reduce death and eliminate it whenever possible, passive acceptance is not a virtue.

[–]NixonsGhost 3 points4 points ago

100% of all living creatures will die, you can never reduce or eliminate death, only reduce the suffering it causes.

[–]DanielPeverley 0 points1 point ago

You can reduce the amount of time spent dead, which was my point. A smallpox vaccine gives a person years and years of life they wouldn't have had if they had just gotten killed by smallpox, a healthy diet and exercise puts off a death from a wide variety of causes a few years back. We shouldn't just try to accept death, we've got to be pushing it back as much as we can. There are animals that will never die of old age, why not try for the same privilege? The universe doesn't care whether we die in ten seconds or ten thousand years, so why not make a go at the greater amount of life? Transhumanism is the way to go.

[–]NixonsGhost 1 point2 points ago

But then that only begs the question, why would indefinite lifespans be wholly desirable? Is preserving the older generations actually more important than fostering the new generations? How would a lifespan that reaches into the hundreds of years affect population growth?

Don't we already have the ultimate weapon to combat death; sex?

[–]DanielPeverley 0 points1 point ago

There are certainly philosophical issues involved in the extension of life, and I for one am willing to spend as many centuries as necessary to solve them :) . Indefinite lifespans are desirable for the simple reasons: life is preferable to death. If a child had a disease that meant they were only able to live to be thirty, that would be sad right? That's not too far from the average life span of humanity for most of our species' history. For the same reason I see a shortening of life span as a bad thing, I I see an extension of life span as a good thing. More life is more experience, more knowledge, more romance, more adventure, more everything of all of the things that make our existences worth living. On the older/younger generation issue, do you think that possible people have rights? There's a lot of rabid hatred on this board for the pro-life implications of such a viewpoint, but I suppose it has its own sort of legitimacy. I personally think that we can't look out for the rights of possible people at the expense of actual people, and I imagine a longer lifespan would have mosly positive political consequences. It's one thing to pollute the planet and screw over your fellow beings when you know you'll be pushing daisies in thirty years or so, and another entirely when you know that outside of violent death you'll have to deal with the consequences of your actions for hundreds of years to come.

[–]TrustiestMuffin -1 points0 points ago

I felt compelled to transcribe a segment of one of Hitch's last interview's when he was asked about death. As always, it was a calculated and brilliant answer.

One can’t live without fear. It’s a question, ‘what is your attitude towards fear?’

I’m afraid of a sordid death, I’m afraid that I would die in an ugly or squalid way. Cancer can be very pitiless in that.

(Interviewer: That’s a fear of DYING, not death?)

Quite. So I forget now what you ask…it’s a good distinction. Of death no, of dying, yes…I feel a sense of waste about it because I’m not ready. I feel a sense of betrayal to my family and I’d like to think to even some of my friends who would miss me. Undone things, unattained objectives, but as I said before, I’d always have that as if I were 100.

(Interviewer: Does it make you angry?)

No, it makes me sober, objective. I think, well, this is the best known of our disease enemies. I’m one of its many many victims, I’m probably one of the lucky ones in point of being able to have treatment and care. I’d like to prove to other people that it’s not the end of everything to be diagnosed with it. In other words, yes it can be resisted. I think I prefer resistance to battling. I didn’t pick this fight but now I’m in it, I’d like to give it my best shot. And as I say, what this means to me is putting myself on the side those men of medicine, and science, and reason who are trying to reduce it to something that is understandable, sailable to reason and that will be brought under control.

(Interviewer: But the likelihood is that it will kill you…)

Well the certainty is that is what I will die from, some people die with cancer. I might die with it. Unless I have a heart attack, which I could easily have, by the way, but I’m much more likely now to have a blood clot than I was before… Or a stroke perhaps. But I mean no, it’s the proximate reason for my death and I am both lucky and unlucky to know it in advance and be able to take its measure.