Hacker News Reader

Comment by sBqQu3U0wH | Hacker News Reader

Because I think that it's not a life worth living, because living like this would feel fake, artificial. I don't want it to depend entirely on some device with battery. Moreover, it brings problems and potential risks on its own and is unlikely to extend lifespan significantly.

View on HN

The only piece that makes sense about what you said is that it is unlikely to extend lifespan. Do you consider all life-saving medical interventions to be "living a fake life"?

I experienced a very bad compound fracture of my wrist, and I have metal plates and a bunch screws permanently implanted into my left radius and ulna. I don't consider the use of my left hand to be fake or artificial, but by your rationale I'm fooling myself.

What I meant is "being kept alive by artificial means". You can live without having a functioning hand - you can't without a functioning heart. But, to some extent yes, if it's something your body cannot recover (well enough) from, and you have to resort to external interventions by planting some kind of artificial material into you body, it's faking your body's capabilities. May be life saving or improve quality of live significantly for sure, but it's an illusion, it's not you in your biological entirety. I am not smart or eloquent enough to describe it in detail, but that's the gist of it.

Is the use of eyeglasses or hearing aids "fake" too? Or do you have some kind of fear of contamination, being "less-than-human"? Your views seem quite abnormal.

>Is the use of eyeglasses or hearing aids "fake" too?

Yes.

>Or do you have some kind of fear of contamination, being "less-than-human"?

No. In fact, I have nothing against external life enhancing tools of any kind, be it glasses, hearing aids or anything else. I do not look down on anyone for having any kind of artificial devices, either invasive or non invasive. Just for me personally, the idea of having artificial devices as a permanent part of biological flesh feels awful. I like technology, but at hand's reach.

>Your views seem quite abnormal.

Good.

I have a defibrillator implant and run half marathons and 5ks. I view it as a challenge to get past that limitation.

I respect your view, but maybe it’s not as limiting as you think it is. The pacemaker doesn’t define you, it just gives you the backup you need so you can do whatever you want to do.

You're already an enormously complex device and your heart beat is triggered by many tiny batteries inside of you.

Yes, but they are biological with which I was born with and not a manufactured chunk of metal with circuits.

The fact that you're on this website typing with a computer means that your life has been materially altered by the development of computers, thanks to all of the hours of the humans that came before us, working learning and building, to bring technology, and you are using that technology to explain that you don't want to use that technology to prolong your life.

I've spent a quarter of my life building tools and environments to help advance spaceflight - I hope to hell that everyone in the future who has the potential to be helped by my work takes advantage of it, otherwise what was it for?

That's not what I had in mind. Whatever.

My dog required a pacemaker due to a total block at a young age. It cost us basically nothing because she was insured. Would you have considered her any less of a dog? If your pet required a pacemaker would you love them any less? Would you refuse them the procedure?

I don't consider anyone "less" for having any kind of medical intervention. If it required a pacemaker, I would agree without a second though, absolutely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com