I don't remember posting this

[andrewducker]

Reading the article here I went through a variety of stages.  At the end of page one I felt that I would rather be dead than be in the same situation as Clive, trapped in a world that I could not understand, constantly living in terror and incomprehension.  And then by the end of page two I felt that maybe it would be something I could live with.  And then by the end of the article I just didn't know.

It's a fascinating piece, and it highlights just how fragile the world we live in is, dependent as we are on a small and easily damaged lump of grey porridge-like good.

[Poll #1338336]

Comments

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

But only just!

[martling.livejournal.com]

I vote for dead.

Think of it this way: every "reawakening" of Clive is a fresh consciousness doomed to die in the next five seconds, and not have a great time in between.

The strain on the person's carers must be immense, too. I'd never want to cause that.

[andrewducker]

So, we have a lower bound of five seconds, and an upper bound of (say) 80 years. What's the shortest life that's worth living?

[martling.livejournal.com]

My point isn't so much about the duration, as the clearly confused and uncomfortable nature of each period. And the near-certainty, based on thousands of previous trials, that this is what will happen each time.

[andrewducker]

But when he's around his wife, or with music, or other familiar things, he seems to be pretty happy.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

Er, singularly inappropriate cartoon. Does the New Yorker just insert them at random?

A very powerful article. I was really confused for a minute there because I was sure I'd read this in the Guardian. I had, Sacks is a canny bugger.

[wychwood]

I said "rather be alive", based on the fact that apparently that's his decision too *g*. He seems quite happy. But obviously it would be a pretty sucky option either way...