Monday was my 46th birthday and likely my last (2013)(web.archive.org)
web.archive.org
Monday was my 46th birthday and likely my last (2013)
https://web.archive.org/web/20160304012020/http://aaronwinborn.com/blogs/aaron/monday-was-my-46th-birthday-and-likely-my-last-anything-awesome-i-should-try-after-i-die
145 comments
Hopefully it also starts us on a path of treating death as a problem to solve, so we can die on our own terms instead of being forced to do so by a cruel reality.
https://www.sens.org/
https://www.lifespan.io/
https://www.buckinstitute.org/
https://www.sens.org/
https://www.lifespan.io/
https://www.buckinstitute.org/
I would rather we change our view on death. Death has always been a constant since life became a thing. Even the mightiest stars in the skies are destined to die one day.
After you die, your consciousness fades, and so do all your desires and regrets.
To me, death is the ultimate respite.
After you die, your consciousness fades, and so do all your desires and regrets.
To me, death is the ultimate respite.
That's fair; you are of course welcome to your own views on life and death. But I don't think there's a "we", here. Some people are accepting of death, and aren't interested in the idea of immortality, or even a significant amount of life extension. Others... are. Neither viewpoint is wrong, or bad.
I don't think I'd want to live forever, but I think the time we get is far too short. I want to see an end to scarcity and poverty. I want to see thriving colonies on Mars. I want to see us figure out superluminal travel and visit other star systems.
Sure, we may also annihilate ourselves in the next century, but I'd rather be optimistic about these things, and it bums me out that I almost certainly won't be around to see them.
I've spent a lot of time on Alcor's website, reading about cryopreservation, and have considered signing up. But I'm worried about what could happen if it works. The culture shock of waking up even a century after your death sounds difficult to handle, let alone many centuries. Aside from being a small window to the past, what of value would I have to a future society? Would I feel without purpose, and wish I hadn't done it?
I don't think I'd want to live forever, but I think the time we get is far too short. I want to see an end to scarcity and poverty. I want to see thriving colonies on Mars. I want to see us figure out superluminal travel and visit other star systems.
Sure, we may also annihilate ourselves in the next century, but I'd rather be optimistic about these things, and it bums me out that I almost certainly won't be around to see them.
I've spent a lot of time on Alcor's website, reading about cryopreservation, and have considered signing up. But I'm worried about what could happen if it works. The culture shock of waking up even a century after your death sounds difficult to handle, let alone many centuries. Aside from being a small window to the past, what of value would I have to a future society? Would I feel without purpose, and wish I hadn't done it?
Neither viewpoint is wrong, or bad
Actually I think trying to eliminate death (at least if we're talking about letting people live >1000 years or choose when they die) is extremely bad and will have awful, awful consequences.
You think inequality is bad now? Can you imagine what it will be like when people can amass power and fortunes for thousands of years? How progressive do you think our views on race and sex would be if there were still people voting who were 800 years old? Or science, for that matter (science progresses one funeral at a time, as they say). House prices are astronomically bad where I live... how bad will it be when houses are held forever?
Old age and death create the space for our lives to be young and free, albeit for a short glorious period. I don't doubt it will eventually happen, and the world will become a far more static, miserable place as humanity pushes endlessly forward in our quest to avoid pain and grab all we can for ourselves instead of trying to enjoy life for the ephemeral experience it is.
Actually I think trying to eliminate death (at least if we're talking about letting people live >1000 years or choose when they die) is extremely bad and will have awful, awful consequences.
You think inequality is bad now? Can you imagine what it will be like when people can amass power and fortunes for thousands of years? How progressive do you think our views on race and sex would be if there were still people voting who were 800 years old? Or science, for that matter (science progresses one funeral at a time, as they say). House prices are astronomically bad where I live... how bad will it be when houses are held forever?
Old age and death create the space for our lives to be young and free, albeit for a short glorious period. I don't doubt it will eventually happen, and the world will become a far more static, miserable place as humanity pushes endlessly forward in our quest to avoid pain and grab all we can for ourselves instead of trying to enjoy life for the ephemeral experience it is.
1. These are problems to solve independently of death. Shitty governments and politics do not justify death. These problems absolutely aren't in the problem space of life extension to solve.
2. It is arguable that life and freedom are meaningless if we are doomed to lose everything we ever have and are in the end, after such a short amount of time.
3. "Enjoying life for the ephemeral experience it is" is something we do out of hard necessity. I'd take a bit less enjoyment as opposed to, well, not existing at all. Even then, enjoyment and long lives do not have to be mutually exclusive should we solve our problems in time.
Relying on death to solve problems with our government and politics is like relying on a nuclear bomb to heat your dinner. It'll work, it'll also cause immense pain and suffering.
We can and should solve these problems in a separate thread. Alternatively phrased, if power was already stagnated and concentrated, and you had a button to start killing ~100 million random people a year to "solve" this problem, it would be insane to press it. We must find alternative solutions.
2. It is arguable that life and freedom are meaningless if we are doomed to lose everything we ever have and are in the end, after such a short amount of time.
3. "Enjoying life for the ephemeral experience it is" is something we do out of hard necessity. I'd take a bit less enjoyment as opposed to, well, not existing at all. Even then, enjoyment and long lives do not have to be mutually exclusive should we solve our problems in time.
Relying on death to solve problems with our government and politics is like relying on a nuclear bomb to heat your dinner. It'll work, it'll also cause immense pain and suffering.
We can and should solve these problems in a separate thread. Alternatively phrased, if power was already stagnated and concentrated, and you had a button to start killing ~100 million random people a year to "solve" this problem, it would be insane to press it. We must find alternative solutions.
"Enjoying life for the ephemeral experience it is" is something we do out of hard necessity.
But we don't do it. We sit here worrying about dying and trying to ensure we will live forever instead of enjoying the time we do have alive. Read experiences of people who suddenly find out they are going to die relatively soon- the richness of their life takes on a whole new dimension.
These are problems to solve independently of death.
And why do you have 100% faith they will be solved? Is that how the world generally tends to work? Or will things just get worse and people will blame it on the government instead of the thing that changed and allowed things to be bad?
This happens all the time. Technology comes in, makes peoples lives shit, "It's not a problem with the technology it's how we use it". What does that matter if we're not capable of using it better? If the world is going to be shit if people can live forever, then people living forever is shit.
It is arguable that life and freedom are meaningless if...
If you look at how people behave, it is actually the opposite- things don't have value unless they are scarce, limited. We value our life and youth because it runs out.
But we don't do it. We sit here worrying about dying and trying to ensure we will live forever instead of enjoying the time we do have alive. Read experiences of people who suddenly find out they are going to die relatively soon- the richness of their life takes on a whole new dimension.
These are problems to solve independently of death.
And why do you have 100% faith they will be solved? Is that how the world generally tends to work? Or will things just get worse and people will blame it on the government instead of the thing that changed and allowed things to be bad?
This happens all the time. Technology comes in, makes peoples lives shit, "It's not a problem with the technology it's how we use it". What does that matter if we're not capable of using it better? If the world is going to be shit if people can live forever, then people living forever is shit.
It is arguable that life and freedom are meaningless if...
If you look at how people behave, it is actually the opposite- things don't have value unless they are scarce, limited. We value our life and youth because it runs out.
But we don't do it. We sit here worrying about dying and trying to ensure we will live forever instead of enjoying the time we do have alive.
This is a false dilemma. People can enjoy the time being alive while optimizing for the long term.
Exercising increases our health and make us enjoy life more.
Read experiences of people who suddenly find out they are going to die relatively soon- the richness of their life takes on a whole new dimension.
This is a rationalization or terror management. Moreover, the richness of life should come before having to face one's own mortality.
We always have a choice of living life to our fullest, or don't at any given time, immortal or mortal.
This is a false dilemma. People can enjoy the time being alive while optimizing for the long term.
Exercising increases our health and make us enjoy life more.
Read experiences of people who suddenly find out they are going to die relatively soon- the richness of their life takes on a whole new dimension.
This is a rationalization or terror management. Moreover, the richness of life should come before having to face one's own mortality.
We always have a choice of living life to our fullest, or don't at any given time, immortal or mortal.
> And why do you have 100% faith they will be solved? Is that how the world generally tends to work? Or will things just get worse and people will blame it on the government instead of the thing that changed and allowed things to be bad?
This doesn't change the fact that using death to solve inequality is like using a nuclear bomb to heat your dinner. We ought to find a better solution and solve it independently.
I do not understand your pessimism. Historically speaking, humanity tends to solve the problems it encounters. A look over the past few centuries alone reveals this. We'll solve this problem too.
This doesn't change the fact that using death to solve inequality is like using a nuclear bomb to heat your dinner. We ought to find a better solution and solve it independently.
I do not understand your pessimism. Historically speaking, humanity tends to solve the problems it encounters. A look over the past few centuries alone reveals this. We'll solve this problem too.
This doesn't change the fact that using death to solve inequality
I'm not saying it will solve inequality, I'm saying it is preventing it from being far, far, far worse than it already is. Do you feel like we're solving the inequalities we currently have enough to unleash something that will make things one hundred times worse? Knowing that once it is unleashed it will be almost impossible to reverse?
is like using a nuclear bomb to heat your dinner.
You're proposing that we remove the nuclear bomb that has been heating the food we've been eating for the last 1 billion years and assuming we'll just figure out something else.
I do not understand your pessimism. Historically speaking, humanity tends to solve the problems it encounters
I guess my pessimism stems from a different perspective of what it means to "solve our problems". I look around the world as it is today and I don't feel like we genuinely have solved any of the problems at the core of human existence.
I'm not saying it will solve inequality, I'm saying it is preventing it from being far, far, far worse than it already is. Do you feel like we're solving the inequalities we currently have enough to unleash something that will make things one hundred times worse? Knowing that once it is unleashed it will be almost impossible to reverse?
is like using a nuclear bomb to heat your dinner.
You're proposing that we remove the nuclear bomb that has been heating the food we've been eating for the last 1 billion years and assuming we'll just figure out something else.
I do not understand your pessimism. Historically speaking, humanity tends to solve the problems it encounters
I guess my pessimism stems from a different perspective of what it means to "solve our problems". I look around the world as it is today and I don't feel like we genuinely have solved any of the problems at the core of human existence.
> Technology comes in, makes peoples lives shit
So pessimistic. Basically all tech (except perhaps certain weapons advances) improves our lives. Yeah doomscrolling sucks but is it worse than watching the grass grow while you get drunk on the porch a hundred years ago? (Assuming you had a porch, or booze for that matter.) Yeah biased AI sucks, but is it worse than overtly racist societies from 50 years ago? We certainly can and must keep improving our collective lot in live, but "all is shit" is fundamentally lacking perspective.
> We value our life and youth because it runs out.
No, we value life because it affords us agency and positive experience. We value the memory of youth for its limited responsibility, higher fecundity, and being earlier in our life's decision tree.
So pessimistic. Basically all tech (except perhaps certain weapons advances) improves our lives. Yeah doomscrolling sucks but is it worse than watching the grass grow while you get drunk on the porch a hundred years ago? (Assuming you had a porch, or booze for that matter.) Yeah biased AI sucks, but is it worse than overtly racist societies from 50 years ago? We certainly can and must keep improving our collective lot in live, but "all is shit" is fundamentally lacking perspective.
> We value our life and youth because it runs out.
No, we value life because it affords us agency and positive experience. We value the memory of youth for its limited responsibility, higher fecundity, and being earlier in our life's decision tree.
I don't think 2 is right. Only property becomes meaningless, since it's the only thing you're losing. Life and freedom only become more meaningful with time constraints, since you don't have time to do anything and everything.
As a matter of focus, we should solve those other problems first, especially since increasing life expectancy is already having bad effects, both in wealth and power concentration. Eg. Boomers not retiring, and not dying, so gen x and millenials have bad careers and nowhere to live
For another rephrasing, if I had the option to go back in time, and prolong the life of all the slave owners and the people they enslaved, I wouldn't subject the poor people to 1000 years of torture.
As a matter of focus, we should solve those other problems first, especially since increasing life expectancy is already having bad effects, both in wealth and power concentration. Eg. Boomers not retiring, and not dying, so gen x and millenials have bad careers and nowhere to live
For another rephrasing, if I had the option to go back in time, and prolong the life of all the slave owners and the people they enslaved, I wouldn't subject the poor people to 1000 years of torture.
Put another way, you're in favor with forcing everyone to die hundreds of years early. "Nasty, brutish, and short" indeed.
I'm calling bullshit on "time constraints as meaningfulness" too. That's just the subjective time dilation we experience during stressful situations, like in sports.
We have so many aphorisms to sooth the fear of death, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily true in a post-mortality culture.
I'm calling bullshit on "time constraints as meaningfulness" too. That's just the subjective time dilation we experience during stressful situations, like in sports.
We have so many aphorisms to sooth the fear of death, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily true in a post-mortality culture.
> You think inequality is bad now? Can you imagine what it will be like when people can amass power and fortunes for thousands of years?
Wealth isn't zero-sum, and so it's always weird to see people arguing about how bad inequality is.
If the standard of living isn't improving, that's a problem we should address. If the standard of living is improving and the rich are getting richer, why is that an issue?
From perspectives of history, intuition, and statistics, it's clear that inequality and overall quality of life aren't inversely correlated as many today believe they are.
> House prices are astronomically bad where I live... how bad will it be when houses are held forever?
I imagine someone will get bored of a house after a few decades, certainly after a century, and so they won't be held forever. Additionally, as the population increases, we'll create new housing.
Wealth isn't zero-sum, and so it's always weird to see people arguing about how bad inequality is.
If the standard of living isn't improving, that's a problem we should address. If the standard of living is improving and the rich are getting richer, why is that an issue?
From perspectives of history, intuition, and statistics, it's clear that inequality and overall quality of life aren't inversely correlated as many today believe they are.
> House prices are astronomically bad where I live... how bad will it be when houses are held forever?
I imagine someone will get bored of a house after a few decades, certainly after a century, and so they won't be held forever. Additionally, as the population increases, we'll create new housing.
I don't think I'd want to live forever, but I think the time we get is far too short. I want to see an end to scarcity and poverty. I want to see thriving colonies on Mars. I want to see us figure out superluminal travel and visit other star systems.
Don't want to live forever means what? You can't know what your desire and wants will be in 20 years, let alone 100 or 500 years. It's like asking a person when they will go to a bathroom in 20 years.
Don't want to live forever means what? You can't know what your desire and wants will be in 20 years, let alone 100 or 500 years. It's like asking a person when they will go to a bathroom in 20 years.
I think a lot about Alcor too - I think it's probably worth doing. Hopefully you can get someone you care about to do it too.
In the unlikely event it does work, there'd at least be a handful of people - it'd be pretty unlikely to be the only success story I think. Downside risk seems small?
In the unlikely event it does work, there'd at least be a handful of people - it'd be pretty unlikely to be the only success story I think. Downside risk seems small?
Downside is virtually nonexistent if you can afford it. The upside is potentially everything.
Humans are generally adaptable and resilient. Permadeath means you don't get to try adapting to that future.
On the other hand, natural selection runs on death and reproduction.
Humanity's genetics will naturally deteriorate without death.
Humanity's genetics will naturally deteriorate without death.
Tech that gives you immortality probably gives you the ability to tune your genes and their expression too. We are, in fact, slightly closer to the latter than the former. Things like CRISPR, though yet fairly crude, are in practical use.
And humans haven't been subject to natural selection for ages. Pretty much the entire civilization is a cushion between you and forces of nature. Even mastering fire and learning to shoot an arrow from a bow were major developments away from natural selection.
And humans haven't been subject to natural selection for ages. Pretty much the entire civilization is a cushion between you and forces of nature. Even mastering fire and learning to shoot an arrow from a bow were major developments away from natural selection.
You can be interested in immortality all you want but you will still die eventually. Even Jeff Bezos will die, I just don't see science solving this soon, or maybe ever. In fact in the long term the whole universe dies afaik.
Please re-read his comment, or even this whole thread.
The person you replied to specifically said that they don't care for immortality. People are simply advocating for death on their own terms, instead of the pathetically short lives we have today.
The person you replied to specifically said that they don't care for immortality. People are simply advocating for death on their own terms, instead of the pathetically short lives we have today.
Is the problem that life is too short or that people are scared shitless of dying because their genes say so?
That is the same thing as immortality. If you only die on your own terms, and never want to die, you are immortal. Sure, a hundred million years looks big from where we are now, but it's pathetically short if you've already lived for 50 million years
Sounds like a rationalization. There is no permanent solution to the problem of preventing death, so people try to make it a good thing.
This is especially true when you looked at some of our oldest myth such as the Epic of Gilgamesh.
This is especially true when you looked at some of our oldest myth such as the Epic of Gilgamesh.
If humans could live to 200, imagine the wealth and power the top leaders, political or corporate, could accumulate.
Now pray it never happens?
Now pray it never happens?
Meths
To me, death is the ultimate respite.
To me, this makes a virtue of necessity. We have deep philosophies around death only because it's inescapable. But if we could change that, then we could also change those philosophies.
To me, this makes a virtue of necessity. We have deep philosophies around death only because it's inescapable. But if we could change that, then we could also change those philosophies.
death is more complex than just being inescapable. Death is also a change agent that wipes the slate clean and makes place for the new. It's how all organic life adopts collectively.
The first thing that's going to be immortal when death isn't inescapable is Kim Jong Un. No thanks, if you want to see a world without death read Altered Carbon
The first thing that's going to be immortal when death isn't inescapable is Kim Jong Un. No thanks, if you want to see a world without death read Altered Carbon
Altered Carbon is just one fictionalized, dystopian account. It doesn't have to be bad.
Knowing humanity, though, it probably would be.
Knowing humanity, though, it probably would be.
Stuff like that is really easy to say until you are actually on your deathbed.
I have incurable cancer and let me tell you, talking about curing death is laughably absurd at this point. We don't even have good pain killers.
What's absurd is that we aren't even really trying. Curing death and causes of ought to be the singular paramount goal of our society, but it's not, because we have been trained to accept it as inevitable ever since we were capable of thought.
Everything passes. This is not something that can be conquered; it is an inevitable part of the fabric of existence. Maybe it will one day be possible for people to live indefinitely. Maybe egomaniacs would live for thousands of years if they could. But it is not possible to live forever; the universe itself won't last (at least, in form hospitable to life) forever. And so the cessation of our consciousness is inevitable. We can't change this any more than we can change the value of pi.
Inevitable doesn't mean good.
"At another point in the discussion, a man spoke of some benefit X of death, I don't recall exactly what. And I said: "You know, given human nature, if people got hit on the head by a baseball bat every week, pretty soon they would invent reasons why getting hit on the head with a baseball bat was a good thing. But if you took someone who wasn't being hit on the head with a baseball bat, and you asked them if they wanted it, they would say no. I think that if you took someone who was immortal, and asked them if they wanted to die for benefit X, they would say no."" [0]
[0]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/aSQy7yHj6nPD44RNo/how-to-see...
There's no (physics based) reason we have to die, just like there was no reason for all the deaths in child birth in early human history. It's a failure of our current capabilities.
I don't know if any of the claims in Lifespan [1] hold up, but if they do stopping aging may be easier than people previously thought. Either way - I'm hoping we figure it out sooner rather than later.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nXop2lLDa4
[0]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/aSQy7yHj6nPD44RNo/how-to-see...
There's no (physics based) reason we have to die, just like there was no reason for all the deaths in child birth in early human history. It's a failure of our current capabilities.
I don't know if any of the claims in Lifespan [1] hold up, but if they do stopping aging may be easier than people previously thought. Either way - I'm hoping we figure it out sooner rather than later.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nXop2lLDa4
"science advances one funeral at a time"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
Most likely outcome of immortality as humans currently are would be stagnation and power being concentrated in a few hands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
Most likely outcome of immortality as humans currently are would be stagnation and power being concentrated in a few hands
A slowdown of progress becomes as irrelevant as the passage of time. You'd experience more net progress anyways.
Regardless, it's still not a reason to die. You could argue that progress is meaningless with death.
Finally, progress being slowed down is something we can solve independently of death. I think it's a good idea to find alternative solutions to stagnation than literally dying - that's like solving an issue with your OS by throwing your whole computer in the trash.
Alternatively phrased, if power was already stagnated and concentrated, and you had a button to start killing a couple million random people like clockwork every year to "solve" this problem, it would be insane to press it.
Regardless, it's still not a reason to die. You could argue that progress is meaningless with death.
Finally, progress being slowed down is something we can solve independently of death. I think it's a good idea to find alternative solutions to stagnation than literally dying - that's like solving an issue with your OS by throwing your whole computer in the trash.
Alternatively phrased, if power was already stagnated and concentrated, and you had a button to start killing a couple million random people like clockwork every year to "solve" this problem, it would be insane to press it.
[deleted]
Actually there is a physics based reason. It’s entropy. Entropy can only increase over time in an isolated system. The human body is a complex multicellular organism largely isolated from the environment and largely in homeostasis once fully grown. Increasing entropy over time is inevitable. It would require increasingly larger amounts of energy to counteract its effects on our body, which over time would become impossible to supply.
If stars cannot sustain themselves forever, how can we compete? We are far more complex with a far smaller energy budget.
If stars cannot sustain themselves forever, how can we compete? We are far more complex with a far smaller energy budget.
Entropy may win in the very end, but that's after trillions of years (unless we're in a Big Crunch or Big Rip universe), and asserts that no intelligence will ever find a way to circumvent it (see Clarke's First Law).
On a more relatable scale, humans do grow in complexity, order, and capability in their early years, until eventually decay turns the tide toward the end of our natural lifespans. It would be rather odd if it's physically impossible to re-activate those growth and healing mechanisms—much more likely that we just haven't figured out how yet.
[Edit: I'm amazed at the posts saying it's not worth trying to live longer because you'll never outlast A STAR. It's not a competition people!]
On a more relatable scale, humans do grow in complexity, order, and capability in their early years, until eventually decay turns the tide toward the end of our natural lifespans. It would be rather odd if it's physically impossible to re-activate those growth and healing mechanisms—much more likely that we just haven't figured out how yet.
[Edit: I'm amazed at the posts saying it's not worth trying to live longer because you'll never outlast A STAR. It's not a competition people!]
If you're not living all the way till dark energy rips your atoms apart, what's the point?
Seriously though, what is the point? You're gonna have the same fomo with death in the future as you do now.
We've already found out how to reactivate those growth and healing mechanisms. Have children, then grand children, then great grandchildren, etc. Each generation gets its own activation
Seriously though, what is the point? You're gonna have the same fomo with death in the future as you do now.
We've already found out how to reactivate those growth and healing mechanisms. Have children, then grand children, then great grandchildren, etc. Each generation gets its own activation
> You're gonna have the same fomo with death in the future as you do now.
I'm sure my ancestors worried constantly about their next meal because starvation was a very real possibility, but luckily I don't think about starving even though it's technically still possible. I hope that in the future the same is true of disease and non-accidental death.
The point is having as much time as you want to do the things that interest you. Nobody should be forced to live when they don't want to, and nobody should be forced to die when they don't want to. Pretty simple really.
> We've already found out how … Have children
Come on now, we both know that a legacy isn't remotely the same as not dying.
I'm sure my ancestors worried constantly about their next meal because starvation was a very real possibility, but luckily I don't think about starving even though it's technically still possible. I hope that in the future the same is true of disease and non-accidental death.
The point is having as much time as you want to do the things that interest you. Nobody should be forced to live when they don't want to, and nobody should be forced to die when they don't want to. Pretty simple really.
> We've already found out how … Have children
Come on now, we both know that a legacy isn't remotely the same as not dying.
It's dangerous to see acceptance of death as a kind of virtue. The amount of funding dedicated to anti-aging research is very small, it's a tiny subset of funding for Alzheimer's disease by the NIH. I think it's precisely this line of thinking that explains the lack of funding and the extremely slow progress in this field [0].
[0] https://www.nia.nih.gov/about/budget/fiscal-year-2021-budget
[0] https://www.nia.nih.gov/about/budget/fiscal-year-2021-budget
Exactly. It may have been "virtuous" to accept death when it was inconceivable to solve.
Today anti-aging solutions are likely within reach should we concentrate research and funding in a massive push to solve the issue.
We ought to abandon our fatalistic outlook (that existed solely due to prior necessity) and sprint towards this goal with every fiber of our beings.
Today anti-aging solutions are likely within reach should we concentrate research and funding in a massive push to solve the issue.
We ought to abandon our fatalistic outlook (that existed solely due to prior necessity) and sprint towards this goal with every fiber of our beings.
Let me remind you that you had been dead for 13.7 billion years before being alive for only 1/1,000,000,000 of that time and you call death a break?
But he's been alive for 100% of his life, which is all that he had to experience.
And he will be alive for 100% of his life - until he is not.
Death is neither good nor bad, nor permanent, in my opinion. Given eternity arbitrary close combinations of matter in space and time that composes you will arise again and again. My opinion is that when we die we pretty much begin a life extremely similar to the life we just lived except maybe some infintesimal thing is different. Thus if you want a better life then start creating it because you have been living variations of the same script forever.
But presumably you've also then been living very different variations of the same script, since there have been infinite combinations of matter that were close enough to give rise to you, but different enough to have very different outcomes.
Also, doesn't physics and the Big Bang rule out this eternal recurrence idea? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA
Also, doesn't physics and the Big Bang rule out this eternal recurrence idea? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA
For your first point I disagree. Once a life in a different aeon becomes sufficiently different from yours it is no longer fair to consider it you.
For your second point, I don't think physics rules out the big bang "recurring" because it does not deal with time before time. The big bang theory is not at all in conflict with cyclic conformal cosmology or eternal expansion.
For your second point, I don't think physics rules out the big bang "recurring" because it does not deal with time before time. The big bang theory is not at all in conflict with cyclic conformal cosmology or eternal expansion.
I agree with you. In a way, death can be viewed a kind of birth. In some cultures a well-liked persons passing is comparatively celebrated.
The grim black traditions of my culture are almost self centered by comparison.
The grim black traditions of my culture are almost self centered by comparison.
My approach to death is this: I am an insignificant drop, and will eventually merge into an ocean of molecules, to be rearranged into other drops.
In that sense, there is nothing to fear, nothing to solve. If the manner in which one is dying is painful, then I should have a means of getting to a quick end.
In that sense, there is nothing to fear, nothing to solve. If the manner in which one is dying is painful, then I should have a means of getting to a quick end.
You won't merge into anything, you will become nothing. No rest, no respite, nothing. Your body might "merge", but that's irrelevant.
Your consciousness - who you are - will end, truly, once and for all. You will never again experience hopes, dreams, memories, or love. You won't experience anything at all for the rest of eternity.
Your consciousness - who you are - will end, truly, once and for all. You will never again experience hopes, dreams, memories, or love. You won't experience anything at all for the rest of eternity.
> so we can die on our own terms instead of being forced to do so by a cruel reality
Step one would be to allow euthanasia. Until we allow that, we cannot pretend that anyone is ever going to be allowed to die on their own terms.
Step one would be to allow euthanasia. Until we allow that, we cannot pretend that anyone is ever going to be allowed to die on their own terms.
Portland represents! That's why I moved here. I have a genetic disease that will eventually take me out slowly and painfully, and from the day I was diagnosed I've wanted to live in Oregon so that I could be in control of my own death. Some would argue that this is denying my loved ones (and our society in general) a natural death, which is supposed to be difficult because that is part of life. However, I believe two things separate us from the animals: our ability to accessorize, and efficiency.
Whether it's "allowed" or not, you can still die on your own terms if you wish. You just need to organise and do it before you are incapable of doing it yourself.
Definitely agreed. Death should be a personal choice.
Even when euthanasia is legal it's generally only an option for people of sound mind. Once you have dementia that option is closed off.
I'm with you on your core point, but in a way, it's orthogonal: Death will continue to be an inevitability, and can arrive at any time - even after we solve senescence. (Accidents, murder etc)
The endgame (a few hundred years from now) would be virtualizing consciousnesses and distributing them across space so only a cosmic disaster could end a being.
You've arrived at heaven and the afterlife through non-religious ways.
There's an episode of Black Mirror for this - "San Junipero".
Basically Permutation City: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City
"And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away."
This sounds like a desperate attempt to cope with death. We can find better ways to encourage change than literally dying.
If people lived indefinitely but society was a bit stagnant, and you pressed a button to kill 100M random people a year to "encourage change", you'd be regarded as insane, and rightfully so.
Death is not the solution to our problems, just like throwing your computer in the trash isn't a solution to a crashing program.
If people lived indefinitely but society was a bit stagnant, and you pressed a button to kill 100M random people a year to "encourage change", you'd be regarded as insane, and rightfully so.
Death is not the solution to our problems, just like throwing your computer in the trash isn't a solution to a crashing program.
Death is the only working solution we've got.
Once you've solved the other problems, you can work on death
Once you've solved the other problems, you can work on death
My example
> If people lived indefinitely but society was a bit stagnant, and you pressed a button to kill 100M random people a year to "encourage change", you'd be regarded as insane, and rightfully so.
highlights that it's baseless to put off solving death or even using it as a solution.
> If people lived indefinitely but society was a bit stagnant, and you pressed a button to kill 100M random people a year to "encourage change", you'd be regarded as insane, and rightfully so.
highlights that it's baseless to put off solving death or even using it as a solution.
> treating death as a problem to solve
I think that's a poor framing. Yes, cure diseases, absolutely, but mortality is intrinsic to humanity. Suffering is a problem to solve. How we should live, knowing that we will most assuredly die is a problem to solve.
Treating death as a problem to solve I think is a conceit and ultimately a fools errand.
I think that's a poor framing. Yes, cure diseases, absolutely, but mortality is intrinsic to humanity. Suffering is a problem to solve. How we should live, knowing that we will most assuredly die is a problem to solve.
Treating death as a problem to solve I think is a conceit and ultimately a fools errand.
Thinking mortality is intrinsic to being human is pretty close to saying that it's right and proper people should die, and I really don't accept that framing either.
There's value in acknowledging we probably can't solve death, and coming to terms with that, but if you had a button sitting in front of you that would completely eradicate cardiovascular disease, you'd press it, right? There's no form of death that I'd even think about keeping, with the exception of suicide and maybe execution.
There's value in acknowledging we probably can't solve death, and coming to terms with that, but if you had a button sitting in front of you that would completely eradicate cardiovascular disease, you'd press it, right? There's no form of death that I'd even think about keeping, with the exception of suicide and maybe execution.
Are you sure you don't just feel that way because you consider death an inevitability? I agree completely that fixing death from old age would fundamentally change people's worldviews and would indeed change what it means to be human. But that doesn't mean it's not a cause worth devoting effort to.
> But that doesn't mean it's not a cause worth devoting effort to.
Why?
Ultimately you need to address what is the meaning of life, and what is your purpose.
I think if you offered immortality to me tomorrow I wouldn't take it.
Why?
Ultimately you need to address what is the meaning of life, and what is your purpose.
I think if you offered immortality to me tomorrow I wouldn't take it.
> I think if you offered immortality to me tomorrow I wouldn't take it.
I think if we offered it to you on your deathbed, as you are seconds away from it, you would.
I think if we offered it to you on your deathbed, as you are seconds away from it, you would.
Only if it cured what ailed me. I would personally be skeptical of such an offer. I would think "Yeah. Sure. And live like this forever without relief or escape. No thanks, buddy."
Not everyone frames such problems the same.
Not everyone frames such problems the same.
To be clear, I'm not discussing a "monkey's paw" sort of scenario, but a legitimate good-faith offer of immortality.
A cure for your ailment is almost certainly implied by an offer of immortality. If we are capable of such a feat we will almost certainly have solved the problem of making humans youthful and healthy indefinitely.
And realistically speaking, death would still be optional, just not forced upon you and your hopes and dreams by random ailments.
A cure for your ailment is almost certainly implied by an offer of immortality. If we are capable of such a feat we will almost certainly have solved the problem of making humans youthful and healthy indefinitely.
And realistically speaking, death would still be optional, just not forced upon you and your hopes and dreams by random ailments.
[deleted]
If suffering is a problem to solve, then so is death. This is evident to all who grieved.
As relevant to the linked post (written by someone who later died of ALS [1]), there are a lot more mainstream medical research organizations who treat "death as a problem to solve". Treating deaths caused by ALS, cancer, heart disease, strokes, covid, etc. as a problem to solve is the focus of a huge amount of research.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis
Death isn't a problem to solve...it's just the end of what we know and the start of everything we don't.
I don't know what comes after death but I'm not scared of it.
I don't know what comes after death but I'm not scared of it.
Alternatively, and more likely, (given our current understanding of the universe), it is the end of everything and the start of nothing.
Given our current understanding of the universe, you are already immortal since there continues to be minute probability that you didn't die, and events can be entangled to that.
Its not really a problem to solve. Its a pretty much guaranteed end we can only delay by so much.
When we are looking at deaths on the cosmic timescales you're implying, we can return to that point. For now, our lifespans are pathetically short. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
> For now, our lifespans are pathetically short.
If you count healthy years I agree, sometimes it's too little for certain people. But in general 90 years seems like more than enough to me, what would you want to accomplish you couldn't in the 70 years form your 20s to your 90s? People peak quite early. Also seeing your values, beliefs and lifestyles being ridiculed by the new generations isn't that much fun...who knows how people 80 years from now will view our generation that messed up the climate (and countless other things we do now that we think are normal but are really not). Probably how we now see slave owners.
It's mostly about our fear of dying, I'm sure when the average life span becomes 120 or 200 everyone will yell it's too damn short. If you're scared of dying your'e scared of dying, in fact the more you fight it with treatments probably the more scared you become.
If you count healthy years I agree, sometimes it's too little for certain people. But in general 90 years seems like more than enough to me, what would you want to accomplish you couldn't in the 70 years form your 20s to your 90s? People peak quite early. Also seeing your values, beliefs and lifestyles being ridiculed by the new generations isn't that much fun...who knows how people 80 years from now will view our generation that messed up the climate (and countless other things we do now that we think are normal but are really not). Probably how we now see slave owners.
It's mostly about our fear of dying, I'm sure when the average life span becomes 120 or 200 everyone will yell it's too damn short. If you're scared of dying your'e scared of dying, in fact the more you fight it with treatments probably the more scared you become.
> People peak quite early. Also seeing your values, beliefs and lifestyles being ridiculed by the new generations isn't that much fun.
Implicit in this is that people can't change.
More time alive to experience different cultures, form relationships with different people, and perform different roles in society are all likely to encourage people to be more accepting and adaptable, not less.
Put another way, I don't have to change if I'm just running out the clock, but if I'm going to be around a while then it's worth staying engaged with my community.
Implicit in this is that people can't change.
More time alive to experience different cultures, form relationships with different people, and perform different roles in society are all likely to encourage people to be more accepting and adaptable, not less.
Put another way, I don't have to change if I'm just running out the clock, but if I'm going to be around a while then it's worth staying engaged with my community.
Pathetically short to me just sounds like you've done a bad job prioritizing.
If you get another 100 years, and you spend it at the 9-5, you're still going to find your life pathetically short.
If you get another 100 years, and you spend it at the 9-5, you're still going to find your life pathetically short.
When we understand that we have an eternal essence within – an immutable part of us that neither bourns thus nor dies, death becomes no longer something to be afraid of. And when we realize this eternal aspect of our existence with direct experience, we also gain the luxury to die (leave the body) at our own will.
A family member recently introduced me to an app called WeCroak that's supposed to send periodic reminders of your mortality. You just reminded me to give it a spin!
This reminds me of the Last Lecture by Professor Andy Pausch. It is a lecture that will really hit you in the feels:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7zzQpvoYcQ
It is also an excellent book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7zzQpvoYcQ
It is also an excellent book.
I read that book on a cross-country flight to see my parents, and it impacted me deeply.
We never know what life has in store for us, and the best thing we can do is to enjoy each and every day to the fullest.
Sooner or later, it's going to be our last.
We never know what life has in store for us, and the best thing we can do is to enjoy each and every day to the fullest.
Sooner or later, it's going to be our last.
What's special about Aaron Winborn is not that he died.
We are all going to die.
Aaron Winborn lived.
We are all going to die.
Aaron Winborn lived.
[deleted]
fyi, I posted this story a while ago on Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5893505
But the link no longer worked, the website is down.
I found his obituary: https://obits.pennlive.com/us/obituaries/pennlive/name/jeffr... It looks like he made it to 47.
I found his obituary: https://obits.pennlive.com/us/obituaries/pennlive/name/jeffr... It looks like he made it to 47.
Ok but... why post it now?
Who knows? the answer only serves to let you judge u/Yuioup. Maybe they know someone with ALS, maybe they are a troll looking to use sympathy points for fake Internet points (now convertible to crypto currency and real world currency!) Maybe they knew the person who died and are trying to commemorate them. Hopefully your prompt will let them answer with grace. If not, why did you ask... and so rudely, too
My uncle died of ALS. I find it less scary than Alzheimer's disease but still a truly awful way to go. He wasted away. He was unable to really sleep because every time he fell asleep he would have a subconscious reaction to the breathing machine that triggered panic and woke him up. So he was pumped full of benzos in order to keep his anxiety lower, which made him quite out of it. He was in a medicare-accepting full time care facility which was extremely dirty, smelly, and full of workers who honestly didn't give a fuck, and they expressed this in many overt and subtle ways. The only comfort he got was from his family who visited every day to speak and read to him. He was 78 years old, so at least my uncle had a much fuller life than Aaron, as dying of that at 46 is a pure tragedy.
> He was in a medicare-accepting full time care facility which was extremely dirty, smelly, and full of workers who honestly didn't give a fuck, and they expressed this in many overt and subtle ways. The only comfort he got was from his family who visited every day to speak and read to him.
This is a very uncomfortable reality about our care system and the way our society is structured in general. Nobody deserves this kind of treatment, but we also don't really have the lattitude in our lives to spend time caring for our family. Also this kind of care is commoditized by our insurance system where paying for these kinds of systems is more supported than assisted care in-home.
I'm hoping that as a result of COVID with people finding more lattitude to work flexibly from home and more people focussing on their families that more people can avoid this kind of end-of-life care.
This is a very uncomfortable reality about our care system and the way our society is structured in general. Nobody deserves this kind of treatment, but we also don't really have the lattitude in our lives to spend time caring for our family. Also this kind of care is commoditized by our insurance system where paying for these kinds of systems is more supported than assisted care in-home.
I'm hoping that as a result of COVID with people finding more lattitude to work flexibly from home and more people focussing on their families that more people can avoid this kind of end-of-life care.
This is one of the more obvious reasons to have as many children as possible and to raise them as well as possible. Fact is otherwise nobody is liable to care about you when you’re old and even if one of your peer friends does they’ll be in the same boat.
It doesn’t matter how much money you have, because without someone to actively advocate for you it won’t go well.
It doesn’t matter how much money you have, because without someone to actively advocate for you it won’t go well.
Indeed, but our society seems to be fighting this notion hard.
I didn't find the question to be rude.
"OK, but why now" can be rude in certain contexts, especially sensitive ones like this, but the ellipses push it over the edge into "definitely has a rude tone" (which maybe they did not intend, but I'm only explaining what creates a rude tone in the written word).
Oh sorry. Didn't mean to be rude. Just wondering why a post from 2013 was put up on HN.
Apologies.
Apologies.
He also wrote this book for his children before his passing.
https://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-Daddy-Aaron-Winborn/dp/1533...
Just came across this.
Two weeks ago, Bill died.
Bill was an old friend of mine. We'd known each other for 25 years or more. His wife used to work at the company that employed me, and Bill and I shared extracurricular interests.
Bill was trained as a Maritime Engineer. Due to a story that is not mine to tell, his engineering career was destroyed, and he became a housepainter. A really good one. Because of his erudite approach, he got high-dollar customers. Many of his jobs brought in six-figure gross.
He sent his three kids to college. They all did awesome. He left his wife in great shape, financially.
Bill died of kidney disease. He had been on home dialysis for years. It sucked.
Even with the dialysis, his body started to deteriorate. It was getting worse and worse.
a couple of months ago, he made the decision to stop dialysis, and just check out.
His bags were packed. He had done his job, and left the world a better place.
The last few weeks, I made a point of popping by his house as often as possible. I'd usually pop in five or six days a week, and sit with him for an hour or so. Towards the end, it was ten minutes, because he was in a parallel universe, and my being there didn't do more than make it a pain for his family.
Helping him to die was a deep Honor.
Two weeks ago, Bill died.
Bill was an old friend of mine. We'd known each other for 25 years or more. His wife used to work at the company that employed me, and Bill and I shared extracurricular interests.
Bill was trained as a Maritime Engineer. Due to a story that is not mine to tell, his engineering career was destroyed, and he became a housepainter. A really good one. Because of his erudite approach, he got high-dollar customers. Many of his jobs brought in six-figure gross.
He sent his three kids to college. They all did awesome. He left his wife in great shape, financially.
Bill died of kidney disease. He had been on home dialysis for years. It sucked.
Even with the dialysis, his body started to deteriorate. It was getting worse and worse.
a couple of months ago, he made the decision to stop dialysis, and just check out.
His bags were packed. He had done his job, and left the world a better place.
The last few weeks, I made a point of popping by his house as often as possible. I'd usually pop in five or six days a week, and sit with him for an hour or so. Towards the end, it was ten minutes, because he was in a parallel universe, and my being there didn't do more than make it a pain for his family.
Helping him to die was a deep Honor.
It's dangerous to see acceptance of death as a kind of virtue, I see many comments here showing that sentiment. The amount of funding dedicated to anti-aging research is very small, it's a tiny subset of funding for Alzheimer's disease by the NIH, $3.2b in 2021 down from $3.5b in 2020 [0]. I think it's precisely this line of thinking that explains the lack of funding and the extremely slow progress in this field.
Seeing death in a neutral light is wrong, seeing it as a virtue is absolutely sadistic. We need to stop this medieval way of thinking.
[0] https://www.nia.nih.gov/about/budget/fiscal-year-2021-budget
Seeing death in a neutral light is wrong, seeing it as a virtue is absolutely sadistic. We need to stop this medieval way of thinking.
[0] https://www.nia.nih.gov/about/budget/fiscal-year-2021-budget
> Seeing death in a neutral light is wrong, seeing it as a virtue is absolutely sadistic.
I don't know many people that think death itself is virtuous, but I think seeing sacrifice (even of life) for something good can be extremely virtuous.
I would, however, disagree with the view that seeing death in a neutral light is wrong. I very much enjoy life and I'm looking forward to a long time living it, but I think it's totally fine that I'll die one day. Granted I'm not looking forward to it, but I don't think it's a bad thing that it'll happen.
I don't know many people that think death itself is virtuous, but I think seeing sacrifice (even of life) for something good can be extremely virtuous.
I would, however, disagree with the view that seeing death in a neutral light is wrong. I very much enjoy life and I'm looking forward to a long time living it, but I think it's totally fine that I'll die one day. Granted I'm not looking forward to it, but I don't think it's a bad thing that it'll happen.
My mother passed away from ALS at 53. It is a terrible way to go
Generally speaking, the Way of the warrior is resolute acceptance of death.
—Miyamoto Musashi
—Miyamoto Musashi
This hits me. I went to college with Kim Suozzi, referenced in the article.
This reminds us of our mortality. Live life to the fullest, do what makes you happy.
I'm glad that he already finds his peace. Seems like a genuine and nice person that is grateful for everything.
I'm glad that he already finds his peace. Seems like a genuine and nice person that is grateful for everything.
Given what I would consider the eternal preciousness of a human, and the fleeting insignificance of computer software, I found it strange he opened with "I am a developer for Drupal." For example, why did he place that before his being a father?
I think people too often miss the significance of their own existence, independent of their relatively brief tasks and accomplishments. I certainly do not mean to belittle or speak poorly of anyone's accomplishments, but the importance of simply being is so significant and people so rarely appreciate that significance.
I think people too often miss the significance of their own existence, independent of their relatively brief tasks and accomplishments. I certainly do not mean to belittle or speak poorly of anyone's accomplishments, but the importance of simply being is so significant and people so rarely appreciate that significance.
Given what I would consider the eternal preciousness of a human, and the fleeting insignificance of computer software, I found it strange he opened with "I am a developer for Drupal." For example, why did he place that before his being a father?
Maybe he just knew the audience that he was speaking to. After all, if it wasn't for that he probably wouldn't be linked here.
No need to overanalyze.
Maybe he just knew the audience that he was speaking to. After all, if it wasn't for that he probably wouldn't be linked here.
No need to overanalyze.
I think for a lot of people being a parent is not the distinguishing factor of their identity. Most people become parents so one can’t blame them for not seeing themselves distinguished by it.
Why do you think being a father is anymore of an achievement?
Being a parent is difficult and you are one of (at most) two parents. You will be one of the two most important people in your child's life.
Drupal developers are numerous and not the most important people in anyone's life solely because they are Drupal developers.
Drupal developers are numerous and not the most important people in anyone's life solely because they are Drupal developers.
Raising a child by being a father is a much larger achievement than writing any software. I’d say the same if you mentioned someone like Linus Torvalds.
Does Linus even have children? I don’t know cause I never cared what he did in that area of his life. It has never affected me certainly. I am certainly in awe of his accomplishments with Linux/git though.
Don’t know. But I think that misses the point.
I get it. He might not prize his accomplishments with software as much as he does having raised his hypothetical children. I doubt it though. Most individuals raise children and there aren't millions around the world singing praises about how one particular individual raised their children.
Single-handedly writing software that touches nearly every human being around the world - only few have done that.
This reminds me of that Bill Burr skit where he talks about mothers convincing themselves that theirs is the "most difficult job in the world".
Single-handedly writing software that touches nearly every human being around the world - only few have done that.
This reminds me of that Bill Burr skit where he talks about mothers convincing themselves that theirs is the "most difficult job in the world".
Well, if it helps, fixating on this choice allowed me to collapse your entire thread without reading most of your comment with zero guilt :)
The strange irony to me of this post is that anyone who is older than about 80 could write about how this is likely their last birthday. Death comes for everyone eventually.
I think to myself sometimes, "How long till I'm 80?" From that point on it's just waiting to die. What am I going to do and accomplish in the time between now and then?
I think to myself sometimes, "How long till I'm 80?" From that point on it's just waiting to die. What am I going to do and accomplish in the time between now and then?
Age and health are funny things, sometimes it slowly creeps along, other times it jumps.
At 20 my perspective of old age was different from when I was 30,40,50...
One concern as I get older is the whole aspect that you can reach a point of so much pain and limitations that life becomes a living torture, and with that - my appreciation of the need for legal euthanasia is something that my support grows with age.
After all, it's not worth worrying about death and I don't. What worries me is how I die. Dignity goes a long way and I sure don't want to husk out for days on end in so much pain and medication to combat the pain that I'm dribbling wreck unable to function. That's not my idea of life and I'd like to have that choice and whilst living wills have some carry, the limitations due to dated laws regarding euthanasia and ending ones life early are in need of revision.
One concern as I get older is the whole aspect that you can reach a point of so much pain and limitations that life becomes a living torture, and with that - my appreciation of the need for legal euthanasia is something that my support grows with age.
After all, it's not worth worrying about death and I don't. What worries me is how I die. Dignity goes a long way and I sure don't want to husk out for days on end in so much pain and medication to combat the pain that I'm dribbling wreck unable to function. That's not my idea of life and I'd like to have that choice and whilst living wills have some carry, the limitations due to dated laws regarding euthanasia and ending ones life early are in need of revision.
Anything new to add to this?
Previous discussion (as noted in this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28150698):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5893505
Previous discussion (as noted in this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28150698):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5893505
I see a lot of cool discussion about whether death itself is worth solving, that wasn't really present in the previous thread. Likely because awareness about such efforts in culture has really skyrocketed since the previous thread.
It is interesting and valuable to see new discussion threads emerge over the course of almost a decade, as culture changes and the lens through which we view our lives and problems evolves.
It is interesting and valuable to see new discussion threads emerge over the course of almost a decade, as culture changes and the lens through which we view our lives and problems evolves.
fairplay about the new reflections/discussion that wasn't present in previous -- so maybe write a new blog post about it, referencing this old, as an expansion/update instead of reposting an archive link etc, if it is about new thoughts/updates.
[deleted]
This really hit me. Nothing to add other than that.
Thank you for posting Aaron's story.
[deleted]
Thinking about his family, the cryonics option raises a lot of questions.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[1] https://www.drupal.org/community/cwg/aaron-winborn-award