Is our fear of death worse than it used to be?

[Iamme]

Is it MY generation...or what?

Is this just my imagination, or is there something to this. Back in the earlier part of the last century...didn't people sort of accept growing old and dying?

Today, people don't want to get old. They don't want their breasts to sag...they don't want wrinkles...they want their mind to work like in their youth (Focus Factor)...they want to regrow hair on their balding head.

I actually think there is this (I'll call it) rebellion against dying.

Years ago, people, if they had some of the common ailments like Diabetes, or heart disease, or cancer...sort of presumed that they were in the beginning stages of the end. They accepted their fate. Nothing anybody could really do about it.

But today, we EXPECT modern breakthroughs almost daily. We have gotten so accustomed to hearing of marvelous procedures to help slow, thwart, or destroy some of the staple diseases that were doing us in. We hear news stories where 'experts' have said that there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to live to be 150. I heard a story the other day that said that there isn't a good reason for us to die..at ALL. Well, when you become bombarded with such stuff...and you hear how they can grow new body parts, and things that are on the horizon, you can think that we are living in a time, where we are in a race against time: Are we going to die first..or are we going to be lucky enough to still be alive when they discover how to keep you from dying?

I hope this subject doesn't depress you.

My mother obviously comes from the generation before me. She grew up in the earlier part of the last century. She has seen many people die, including her parents and some siblings. Yet, she has no fear of death. She believes that my generation has lost it's faith in God...and that THIS fact has more to do with peoples fear of death today, than anything else.

Your thoughts please?

 

[Suezoled]

I don't want my boobs to sag, either.

I don't think there is so much a new rebellion against death and aging, as it is more apparent these days. In magazines, on tv and in movies, you see people wanting to stay young, and not dying. I think that's something that people have wanted for years.

It used to be (correct me if I'm wrong), it was desirable to become an "older" individual, age 50 or so. In Europe, it signified you were long lived, and full of wisdom. With a higher mortality rate a few centuries ago, the envy was to live to be old, not stay young.

 

[I'll_buy_that]

Well, I would like to think that we have become more enlightened and less likely to believe in the supernatural. It seems like that would be a good reason that, to you, people seem to be afraid of growing old and dying lately. After all, if the afterlife is promised to you and it is definitely better than what is on earth, then why don't we welcome death? But the data doesn't support this. In fact I think it shows that we are becoming more spiritual.

Self preservation is the nature of animals. Death isn't something we welcome. In the past there wasn't a whole lot an individual could do about it, so they took care of themselves and hoped for a better life after death.

Vanity is a nature of humans. It is possible now to keep looking younger than your actual age with some money and a bit of plastic surgery. Exercise and a good diet can also do a lot towards this goal. We also can cure a lot of deseases that we weren't able to in the 80s, never mind in the early part of the 20th century.

So, it is a lot of vanity and an expectation that the current science can cure us and lengthen our lives that feed into what you are observing. I don't think there is any new found fear of dying. We can just enjoy our lives for longer now due to new medical technologies and we have grown to expect it.

And as you say, for an athiest, when you know that there isn't an afterlife and all you have is to enjoy life now, then why not prolong it?

 

[Prospero]

My mother obviously comes from the generation before me. She grew up in the earlier part of the last century. She has seen many people die, including her parents and some siblings. Yet, she has no fear of death. She believes that my generation has lost it's faith in God...and that THIS fact has more to do with peoples fear of death today, than anything else. [/B]

Whoa, there's a logic gap there, or at least in my mind there is. Because we've "lost faith in god" we're suddenly afraid of death? There's no threat of hell or consequences, so we're afraid of death? We are able to define for ourselves what happiness is without being told what happiness and that makes us afraid of death? No offense to your mother, but I don't buy it. If anything, a belief in god(s) instills a embracing of death as a means of achieving god or whatever that belief system holds as the afterlife. It's almost like an willingness to die because there's supposedly this great reward. Life is lived to prepare for death, so death has value and is something to be embraced as opposed to feared. Hmm... Now that I put it that way, maybe your mother did have some truth in her words, though her meaning is different from my interpretation. Without god(s)/afterlife, life gains a new sense of meaning and becomes more valuable in its finite nature. She sees the loss of god/faith/whatever as a bad thing. I see it as a clear boon to this and subsequent generations.

 

[Peach Jr.]

It used to be (correct me if I'm wrong), it was desirable to become an "older" individual, age 50 or so. In Europe, it signified you were long lived, and full of wisdom. With a higher mortality rate a few centuries ago, the envy was to live to be old, not stay young.

I've heard that was the case in Asia as well. There's a reason that there is a minimum age for parents adopting children from China in particular...the idea that a younger person wouldn't be ready to be a parent. Revering age as a sign of wisdom might have been the case in the early days of the US, but it's changed within the past 40 years (I'm guessing at the dates here).

Death isn't something I've ever been afraid of. I'm not keen on hastening the end of my days, mind you, but I don't believe it's something to fear. As an atheist, I don't believe that there is anything after death. Why be afraid of nothing? Death, or the idea of death to me, makes life that much more precious and wonderful.

 

[bratok]

I do believe death is a beautiful thing, when it comes in time - after a full 120 years long life. When one has already learned all he could here, did what he had to do, passed on his knowlege to others and now it is his time to move on to a "better world".

As for the modern medicine and all the plastic surgeries... I have a rather negative attitude about it. Of cource, it is good at curing some deseases, but mostly it is only giving people an ability to remove any discomfort ( like pain ) rather then give them health.

For example, someone has tachycardia ( heart beating too fast ). A modern doctor would give him a beta-blockator that would remove the symptoms, i.e. heart rate would go to normal, and send him home. When the effect of the beta-blockator would pass, withing a few hours, he would tell him to take another pill and so on... wouldn't it be right to try to understand why his heart want to beat that way??? Maybe he has some problems in his family? Maybe he thinks he isn't loved enough or that he doesn't love someone enought? What is his body trying to tell him by increasing the heart rate? Like to body is yelling to him that he's doing something wrong, that he's got a wrong attitude about something, but instead of listening to it, a moder doctor would better gag it with a beta-blockator...


Good Luck!

 

[Skeptic]

As for the modern medicine and all the plastic surgeries... I have a rather negative attitude about it. Of cource, it is good at curing some deseases, but mostly it is only giving people an ability to remove any discomfort ( like pain ) rather then give them health.

Removing discomfort and pain IS a critical part of what being healthy is. Just ask anybody who is in pain.

For example, someone has tachycardia ( heart beating too fast ). A modern doctor would give him a beta-blockator that would remove the symptoms, i.e. heart rate would go to normal, and send him home. When the effect of the beta-blockator would pass, withing a few hours, he would tell him to take another pill and so on... wouldn't it be right to try to understand why his heart want to beat that way??? Maybe he has some problems in his family?

Tachycardia isn't caused by these sort of emotional stresses. It is an organic problem (I think, at least). Of course, there ARE diseases where we know what causes the problem to some extent--e.g., hypertension can be caused by stress--and in that case, the doctor will probably recommend lifestyle changes as well as giving blood-pressure medication.

So, yes, IF we know what the lifestyle cause of the disease is, and IF it can be removed, it is better to do that than to just treat the symptoms. And it is, of course, best to live a healthy lifestyle from the start so you are less likely to be to develop such conditions.

But in the vast majority of cases, either we don't really know the reasons for the disease, or these reasons have nothing to do with one's lifestyle, or we cannot do anything to change the lifestyle, or the symptoms must be treated immediately while lifestyle changes take time. In all those cases, medication to treat the symptoms is imperative.

What is his body trying to tell him by increasing the heart rate? Like to body is yelling to him that he's doing something wrong, that he's got a wrong attitude about something, but instead of listening to it, a moder doctor would better gag it with a beta-blockator...

To repeat, Tachycardia is an organic condition that isn't correlated with mental stress or other such emotional factors, so far as I know, which means that with all probability your body is not "trying" to tell you anything except for "the nevrves responsible for my heart's functioning are f**ed up, can you do something about this, please?"

But let us suppose that it is true--that tachycardia is correlated with stress or other mental conditions (which some diseases, of course, are). Why is this a reason not to stop the tachycardia with medicine?

First of all, tachycardia is a potentially life-threathening condition. It makes no sense to let someone's heart overwork itself into cardiac arrest while they're trying to figure out what problem in their relation with their children their body is "telling" them about.

Second, now that you HAVE tachycardia, you KNOW that your body is "trying to tell you something". You don't need a constant reminder of it! You might as well take the pill and THEN try to make sure your relation with your wife improves.

 

[bratok]

There's a good Russian saying - all deseases are from nerves ( from stress ), only syphilis from pleasure .

I fully agree with this. So ( as I see it ), if an unhealthy condition isn't caused by any outer reason ( poisoning, knife stab, etc. ), it is caused by wrong behavior, wrong attitude to something, negative emotions, etc. Organ can't just f*uk-up because of nothing.

In the case with tachycardia, one could and should take the blockator, but only as saying to his heart - "I suppose I understand what you're trying to say to me. My behavior with this-and-this was wrong. I am sorry for what I did to you. Now please calm down and let me correct my misstakes." In this case, a medical treatment would also have a full and permanent effect.

But if one only try to cure his hear with pills, not willing to review or change his behavior... the curing would take very long and it won't go smooth. And even if he will he able to gag his body in this particular organ, something else would pop out .

Like if someone is scared all the time, he might develop kidney problems. If he is angry at someone or at the whole world, he might get an ulcer or something worth... that won't go away that easy untill he'll change his attitude.

Do you know anybody chronically ill? Who's got lots of different deseases? Who does he see the world? I'm sure that mostly in bad colors, he never smiles, never sees anything good around him... he always thinks that his condition or much more worth then it really is. He goes to a doctor, asking "Doctor, during your career, did you ever have a case of recovery of a zit on the nose?"

But did you evey see anybody chronically ill, who'd be in a great mood all the time, smiling, laughing ? I'm sure you haven't. This people just don't get chronically ill ...


Good Luck!

 

[pgwenthold]

In the case with tachycardia, one could and should take the blockator, but only as saying to his heart - "I suppose I understand what you're trying to say to me. My behavior with this-and-this was wrong. I am sorry for what I did to you. Now please calm down and let me correct my misstakes."

Here's the difference between medicine and quackery: medicine says this when they know what was wrong. When it doesn't know what caused the problem in the first place, it does not specify a cure, and relies on the body to heal itself (which it does very well, thank you). On the other hand, even though the quacks don't really know what the problem is, either, they pretend they do, and therefore give some nonsense advice based on nothing.

Medicine recognizes that there are things they can cure (infections), things they can help the body cure (broken bones), and things that have unknown causes that the body must cure itself. In that case, the best approach is to at least relieve the discomfort.

Quacks pretend that they have the answers for everything, and they are usually far too simplistic to even be considered possibly correct.