undefined | Better HN

0 pointsGMoromisato3mo ago0 comments

Sure, I agree with that. But at that point it becomes a philosophical/ethical argument: should we allow certain people to die (or even kill them) to benefit others?

There was a time (not even that long ago) when 50% of kids died before the age of 5. I can totally imagine people saying back then that this was the "natural order of things" and that allowing every kid to live would be disastrous to the environment.

My philosophy is that we should allow (and even enable) people to live as long as they want. I wish that were not controversial, but here we are.

0 comments

igor473mo ago

> when 50% of kids died before the age of 5. I can totally imagine people saying back then that this was the "natural order of things"

One could imagine this, but it wasn't a serious position that anyone actually held. I think discomfort with immortality, especially on consequentialist grounds, is a more legitimate concern

GMoromisatoOP3mo ago

This was famously the view of Social Darwinists. Herbert Spencer, for example, argued that nature should eliminate the weak. He said: "If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die."

The most notorious case was probably Dr. Harry Haiselden, who refused surgery for some newborns with severe defects because letting them die was good for the species.

But, again, this is a philosophical/ethical argument. I believe that, in general, if people don't want to die, we should help them not die. I get that utilitarians are uncomfortable with that, but that's why I'm not a utilitarian.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse