I have to admit that I didn’t follow the argument as an argument—it seemed like a number of disconnected points. Some of them seemed more like sour grapes, some like salvaging some good out of a mostly-bad event. I appreciate the references.
The first third of the post should be deleted, or put in discussion—it’s a defense of talking about the subject, and a rebuttal of other posts, not anything that stands on it’s own. But since it includes a threat that I’ll feel bad if I downvote before reading, I had to read it.
For your first actual point, you seem to say that adaptation has made death less bad than it might be, but completely fail to say it’s good or necessary. Still, this may expand into a good post, if presented as “psychological benefits of (other peoples’) death”.
For your second, that the group is stronger if individuals die, I think it’s a reasonable position to take, and could also make a good post. That post should focus on why death at the level of human individual is the right kind of death. Subpersonality death, by updates of beliefs and of terminal values by agents seems preferable to me, both because it’s faster and because it’s less noticeable by the participants. I think that’s what you’re trying to say in your last section, but that’s so contradictory to your previous use of “death” that I can’t tell.
If you’re really going to promote death, you should begin work toward a theory of when an individual should choose to die, in order to create a better environment for the people who are … still alive.
I have to admit that I didn’t follow the argument as an argument—it seemed like a number of disconnected points. Some of them seemed more like sour grapes, some like salvaging some good out of a mostly-bad event. I appreciate the references.
The first third of the post should be deleted, or put in discussion—it’s a defense of talking about the subject, and a rebuttal of other posts, not anything that stands on it’s own. But since it includes a threat that I’ll feel bad if I downvote before reading, I had to read it.
For your first actual point, you seem to say that adaptation has made death less bad than it might be, but completely fail to say it’s good or necessary. Still, this may expand into a good post, if presented as “psychological benefits of (other peoples’) death”.
For your second, that the group is stronger if individuals die, I think it’s a reasonable position to take, and could also make a good post. That post should focus on why death at the level of human individual is the right kind of death. Subpersonality death, by updates of beliefs and of terminal values by agents seems preferable to me, both because it’s faster and because it’s less noticeable by the participants. I think that’s what you’re trying to say in your last section, but that’s so contradictory to your previous use of “death” that I can’t tell.
If you’re really going to promote death, you should begin work toward a theory of when an individual should choose to die, in order to create a better environment for the people who are … still alive.