Happy Atheist Forum

There's been a small interesting conversation going on in my introduction thread and I thought it might merit discussion in a more appropriate arena.

Death.

What are your feelings on it? How do you cope with it? How do you deal with those already lost? and those with whom you never wish to part?

Forgive me for repeating what has been said earlier in the other thread.

For me, death and the fear of it was the only real concept that made me not want to be an atheist. Even after I had come to all the conclusions and made all the reasonable deductions and cut away the useless and ridiculous with Occam's Razor; I still found myself wanting to bind myself to a belief in an afterlife. How much more satisfying it would be, I had thought, to exist forever and sit as spectator over the rest of the advancements of humanity? How much I would cherish never having to lose a loved one? How much peace of mind I would have knowing that there would always be time?

These thoughts come back every time I think about the future. I live in California where in 2008 we voted to begin work on a High Speed Railway to connect Los Angeles with San Francisco (and where, oddly, we decided that farm animals need rights [Prop 2] while gays didn't [Prop 8]). My father voted for the Railway but afterward, when talking about it, the issue of the estimated 20 years it would take to complete to which my father resigned that he would never live to see it -- and given the general sluggishness and total ineptitude of Sacramento to get anything done I joked that I probably wouldn't see it either. A few days ago NASA launched two probes at the moon, one of which is intended to find an appropriate location for a Lunar Base -- while I'm sufficiently satisfied that I may be around long enough to see its completion, I won't be around when man leaves the inner planets -- or the Solar System -- or the galaxy. Early after having become an atheist these thoughts would have only brought me sadness, and they still do -- but I've come to terms with my own mortality and now these thoughts only give me an intense envy and jealousy for those who will reap the benefits of things I will never see.

Coming to terms with death is something that everyone has to deal with. Some people have cloud kingdoms in the sky, others have mystic planets, we have only the embrace of oblivion. No matter what one accepts, or at the very least cannot not-accept, as one's fate after their ultimate demise; we must all deal with it. Death will come regardless of our degree of preparedness, or our willingness to accept it, or what kind of state we think it will bring us into. The innumerable chemical reactions that keep our bodies functioning will inevitably cease -- and us with them.

Accepting my own eventual death was simple and easy. I quite certain that I will die one day, but the world will go on without me. I know that what family I leave behind will persist. The loved ones with whom I shall never again speak will move on. I do not fear my own demise; there is no sense in fearing something whose arrival I will be blissfully unaware of. I do, however, cling to life because it is far too enjoyable to waste. There is still much that I want to see and do and learn; my only hope is that I can at least satiate half the curiosities.

Accepting the ones who have already gone was slightly more difficult. There is one relative with whom I shall never speak but who I believe was one of the more interesting twigs of my family tree. It is my grandfather who died 20 years before I was born. He was a US Army Sergeant Major who served in the First World War and spent the Second World War in hiding in the Philippines. He lost two sons during the occupation to the Imperial Army. Three of his daughters became nuns and one of his remaining sons became a priest. Yet he, according to my mother, was an atheist. I would have loved to have known him. But I know that that is an impossibility. My wanting, no matter how sincere, will never bring that into reality. But that is alright. I have managed without it and there is no use in grief for something over which I had no power.

Accepting the eventual death of those still living is the hardest. I do not think that I have every capitulated to that eventuality and I sincerely doubt that I ever will. Much like Penn Jillette on losing his mother, I can only tell myself that it "is going to hurt like hell -- and I may never fully get over it." I try to fill every moment with them with as many happy memories as I can muster in the hope that those memories will keep me company when they are no longer able to do so. I know the grief will be unbearable, the regret of having wasted years with them as petulant teenager will eat away at me -- but knowing that these emotions are coming is all that can be done. I doubt there is an effective way of blunting of the blow of losing a loved one -- but if there was I would not want it; grief over their loss is all I can give them in the immediacy after their passing. I have lost many loved ones during my life. I still have sadness over their loss, but I cherish what few memories I have of them. What I can remember I write down, even knowing much of it has been lost or mutated by time. I miss them, I always will.

I have talked with people about my feelings on death, even with my brother who is an atheist in every aspect except in name. Even he as asked me how I can continue living with the working postulate that death is the end. I asked myself that question in the days after my deconversion and suspect at least some of us have as well. Life is still enjoyable. My immediate happiness is not a function of my persistence. Knowing that I will some day be gone forever makes me want to fill every moment with something worthy of it. Every fact not known, every thing not seen, every experience not endured is, as I see it, a deficiency that I must satisfy before the capability is lost along with me.

In a somewhat quizzical way, my acceptance of my own death has made my life better. Knowing that I will very likely not have another go at the game of life has made me want to make the most out of this one. I've delved in to the sciences -- all of them, wanting to learn as much as is knowable of the universe -- even knowing that every mystery satisfied only brings forth more Hydrous heads; the eternal search that science gives me is one of the most enjoyable things in my life. In the three years of my atheism I have taken care my body. At the end of my faith I was obese, my diet was wretched and exercise was non-existent. I have since researched basic nutrition, athletic anatomy and physiology to keep myself alive for as long as humanly possible. Taking care of myself has been a surprising source of joy and self-inspiration. I have begun learning new languages, investigating world history, planning potential backpacking adventures for before my 27th birthday (at which point I will no longer be eligible for a EuroPass). I have taken up art and music and reading of Greek Philosophy. The degree to which I plan into the future has exploded vastly in knowing that my time is finite.

In a general sense, this is how I have reacted to acceptance of my eventual death.

Quote from: "Samuel Clemens"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.

I feel the same way. Death is nothing to be afraid of. How I'm going to die on the other hand is not a fun thought.

This is one of those grand injustices of religion - teaching people as children to have unrealistic expectations.

I figure death is so much easier to deal with if you haven't first been told to expect eternal existence.

Personally (as if I had some other point of view to offer :D

As it is with Sophus, however, it's the transition that still worries me a little.  

I'm curious as to why though.

I'm only 22. Usually people are surprised when I told them I'm already rather resigned to my ultimate demise, but neither death nor the process of dying bothers me anymore. It did for a very long time and it's only been very recently that I've accepted the fact that death is coming for me. The way in which I die will almost certainly be out of my control, but it will happen.

I don't worry about it because there's nothing I can do about it. I do what I can to prolong my life but it's a race against time that everyone has and will lose. My biggest hope is that my run here is impressive enough that Time gives me a high five when I finally cross that finish line.

Good idea thiolsulphate. I'll repeat my post on your introduction thread.

Quote from: "AlP"I agree that death is inevitable and not a particularly desirable event for the majority of us I'm sure. It is special though I think for a number of reasons. First of all, death is one of the few things that only we can do. In most actions we are interchangeable. We could, for example, be someone's husband, but so could any number of people be their husband. Nobody else can die for us though. That's ours and ours alone. There aren't many actions like that. I can only think of two others off the top of my head.

Second, I need to define something I will call essence. By essence I mean the attributes of an object that make it what it is. So for example, the essence of a stick of chalk is that it is a long cylinder made of calcium carbonate used for drawing on a blackboard. I don't mean it in any kind of spiritual sense at all. The essence of a person is, in my opinion, what they have done. Death is the point at which one can finally pin down the essence of a person, because they no longer have the ability to change it.

Third, even in life, death is a useful yardstick. It is inescapable and profound. The many pretensions of the world can be seen for what they are when measured against the yardstick of death.

Finally, and I think this is bordering on cliche, if you will not die then you cannot have lived. Overall it's a win.

I'll add something else. I hope this is more helpful than my previous comments. This is one of the ways I cope with the prospect of death...

There is a little death at every moment. Let me explain. As time passes, my present consciousness is being continuously extinguished, becoming a new consciousness. The consciousness I remember and reflect on from my past no longer exists and has no freedom. Likewise, in turn, I have no power over the consciousnesses of my future and so will soon have no freedom. That loss of freedom is like a little death. It might be a "little death" but it is not painful and it causes me no distress. Why would I fear it?

That's my outlook anyway. And with that outlook, the big death at the end isn't such a big deal when considered in light of the infinity of little deaths I have and will continue to experience.

I think this view is compatible with science. My consciousness at a particular moment in time, as I understand it, is a fleeting combination of electrical activity in my brain. Once its gone it never returns. A new consciousness arises.

Thinking about death actually helps me out a lot... I'm a worrier. I constantly fixate on stupid things, like a poor grade here or there, or my rep or whatever.

But death makes it all irrelevant. Everything bad I do will be forgotten eventually. There's no log of all the dumb stuff I've done. So, I should just enjoy my life now. Not that I don't try to achieve things anymore, I just keep it all in perspective. Momento mori.

On the subject of the departed, I remember that they are at peace. And feel glad I knew them.

Quote from: "Popo"But death makes it all irrelevant. Everything bad I do will be forgotten eventually. There's no log of all the dumb stuff I've done. So, I should just enjoy my life now. Not that I don't try to achieve things anymore, I just keep it all in perspective. Momento mori.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. My view has some similarities but I think that whatever value or significance I associate with my action is wholly my own invention (or carelessly accepted from another person). There are a few things I can do in the event I find myself worrying. First I can examine the value itself and decide whether really accept it. Lets say I'm worrying about my grades. I am free. Is that really important to me? If I still think it's important, I can realize that it isn't some kind of absolute rule. It's my rule. I invented it. I don't need to beat myself up over my own invented rules.

I think we are the lucky ones because we are going to die. How many people have gone through this world thinking they're going to live forever, whether it be in torment or bliss? How many have held back on living to the fullest in hopes that they will have all eternity to act? How many did not learn because they would one day know it all? Who are the people who thought today was inferior to the tomorrow? What countless number have prioritized conforming over happiness to ensure that they will one day be happy?

Death is my gift for it is the only thing that makes my life of value.

Quote from: "AlP"Lets say I'm worrying about my grades. I am free. Is that really important to me? If I still think it's important, I can realize that it isn't some kind of absolute rule. It's my rule. I invented it. I don't need to beat myself up over my own invented rules.

That's a good way of putting it.

Quote from: "Sophus"How many have held back on living to the fullest in hopes that they will have all eternity to act? How many did not learn because they would one day know it all? Who are the people who thought today was inferior to the tomorrow? What countless number have prioritized conforming over happiness to ensure that they will one day be happy?

I have to concur with your sentiments there. I often wonder at all the things I would have denied myself if I had stayed with the church. Almost certainly I would not have the love of science I have now, that love alone has made the trip from godly to godless worth it.

Even when I was a right-wing Catholic there were things I did not like about the church but I always just swallowed the nonsense. If anything, it's nice to know I don't have to anymore. I can hear someone call the Pope a Nazi (which, in fairness, he was) and can laugh instead of being righteously indignant.

How many little joys would have vaporized if I still thought a petulant cosmic brat had domain over my eternal soul.

Well, this is a complicated issue.

Long before Richard Dawkins became atheism's leading spokesperson, I'd found this quote of his and it always helped to take a bit of the horror out of contemplating death:

QuoteWe are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

Wonderful, but of course, it does not alter the fact that I do not want my consciousness to end. To pretend otherwise, for me at least, would be a lie. That being said, wanting x to be true is not an excuse for believing x to be true, regardless of what it is.

When my oldest son (now 15) was about 5 or 6, he'd have fits at bedtime, sometimes, and cry "I don't want to die." It was heartbreaking. What was I to tell him? The only honest answer was "You are not going to die anytime soon." Harsh answer!

This scenario actually led to my flirting with an extremely watered-down kind of philosophical theism for a few years. I gave it up eventually. My rational mind just cannot accept any of it.

Quote from: "Alenthony"[...]
This scenario actually led to my flirting with an extremely watered-down kind of philosophical theism for a few years. I gave it up eventually. My rational mind just cannot accept any of it.

I know exactly what you mean.

I was of the mindset that "there HAS to be a god AND a heaven because I don't want to die" -- as though my not wanting to die had any bearing on the existence of god or heaven; or anything else, for that matter.

I flirted with the idea of the existence of ghosts.

I even tried to convince myself that the "conservation of energy" meant that my "soul" would exist forever (which is an idea that I've heard quite a bit, surprisingly) -- but even a cursory knowledge of the conservation of energy would inform someone that its predication of an "eternal soul" through it is nonexistent and ignorant, bordering on stupid.

-- and I'm not one to be willfully ignorant or stupid.

I'll die eventually, but you should know I'll fight it to the last breath, or, most likely, even longer.

let's work to change this:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fonion_news2364.jpg&hash=c79d5f15f517c30ecee6d8784d39bdb7a51993b0)

There are some other interesting speculative scenarios.

One of them is covered in Frank Tipler's book The Physics of Immortality.

Tipler thinks that the humans of the future will colonize the universe, build massive supercomputers, and develop the technology to recreate every consciousness that ever existed, giving them a new home in a virtual world.

Think of it this way: there is no God, but there will be, one day, when our descendants create/become him.

That being said, the consensus view is that for Tipler's scenario to work, too many spectacularly unlikely things would have to happen. Yes, that is probably the case. But part of me hopes it turns out to be true. And it isn't the kind of hope that can lead to disappointment, because I'll never know if it doesn't happen!

(I'd recommend the book, but it is a tough read. I have a doctorate in physics and I found much of it impenetrable.)

Quote from: "Alenthony"There are some other interesting speculative scenarios.

One of them is covered in Frank Tipler's book The Physics of Immortality.

Tipler thinks that the humans of the future will colonize the universe, build massive supercomputers, and develop the technology to recreate every consciousness that ever existed, giving them a new home in a virtual world.

Think of it this way: there is no God, but there will be, one day, when our descendants create/become him.

That being said, the consensus view is that for Tipler's scenario to work, too many spectacularly unlikely things would have to happen. Yes, that is probably the case. But part of me hopes it turns out to be true. And it isn't the kind of hope that can lead to disappointment, because I'll never know if it doesn't happen!

(I'd recommend the book, but it is a tough read. I have a doctorate in physics and I found much of it impenetrable.)

I have heard some of that but I'm not at all ready to accept that as a basis for my immortality. This came up in the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast where they were talking about potentially recording the precise confirmation of every atom in our body and transmitting that information to be reassembled from a distinct pool of atoms in a separate location.

If I remember correctly, the amount of information to store an average person would require the space of enough 1 Terabyte hard drives, stacked one on top of another, stretching from here to the moon. But, even if that obstacle can be overcome (and I am certain that one day we will laugh at the Terabyte) there is still the issue of continuum. After one has been disassembled, one is dead. Whatever makes up your conscious continuum is over. The you that is reassembled is a totally new continuum. It will be like a clone; the same in every way but still a wholly different entity.

Even if our thoughts and memories are able to be reassembled at some time in the future; we, in our conscious continuum, will be blissfully unaware as our digital clones live on without us.

Quote from: "Alenthony"Frank Tipler's book The Physics of Immortality.

I have heard such horrible things about that book.

Yes, that is an interesting point - I have always found it very puzzling - the fact that in a material sense, we are, each of us, ever changing. We are composed of entirely different materials than we were x years ago, yet we still retain the same mental identity. The process of 'rebuilding the ship, plank by plank' occurs rather slowly, but I don't see why the rapidity of it really matters. If your metabolism was speeded up by 100,000x, I cannot imagine it would change. Yet if you were to lapse into a coma, and an exact duplicate of your mind was created and animated, would the sentience in it be *you*? And if it was, what happens when your body comes out of the coma? Where would "you" be?

Quote from: "Alenthony"Yes, that is an interesting point - I have always found it very puzzling - the fact that in a material sense, we are, each of us, ever changing. We are composed of entirely different materials than we were x years ago, yet we still retain the same mental identity. The process of 'rebuilding the ship, plank by plank' occurs rather slowly, but I don't see why the rapidity of it really matters. If your metabolism was speeded up by 100,000x, I cannot imagine it would change. Yet if you were to lapse into a coma, and an exact duplicate of your mind was created and animated, would the sentience in it be *you*? And if it was, what happens when your body comes out of the coma? Where would "you" be?

It's a very Buddhist concept. There is no "self" from moment to moment, but we experience one via causal relation. It's akin to one candle flame lighting another and believing it to be the "same" flame.

Quote from: "Alenthony"[...] Yet if you were to lapse into a coma, and an exact duplicate of your mind was created and animated, would the sentience in it be *you*? And if it was, what happens when your body comes out of the coma? Where would "you" be?

Effectively, your doppelganger will, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, have assumed your identity.

It will have lived your life and filled your slot in the time between your exit and re-entry. The rest of the world will have considered it as you and all the experience it has gained will be totally absent from you when you return. Your friends and family will have developed new memories and relationships with it that you will never be aware of. In effect, it will have replaced you by the time you return.

It will have become what you once were and you will have become obsolete.

I'm curious about what you qualify as death? At what point in the process of dying is a person considered, for all intents and purposes, no longer?

I bring this up because a very recent but very brief acquaintance has become seriously ill. (I suppose the relative brevity that I knew her makes it easier for me to confront this idea.)

She spent two weeks in the mountains and upon returning became very rapidly ill. She developed serious breathing problems and is now breathing by respirator. I'm guessing it's some form of pneumonia followed by lung failure.

This got me thinking; not too long ago lung failure of that magnitude would have meant death. She lives because the machine is inflating her lungs for her. Things like pacemakers allow the heart to keep beating even though the heart itself has become a failed organ.

There's the wretched case of Terri Schaivo whose parents insisted that she would make a full recovery even though most of her brain had liquefied. For all intents and purposes every system of her body was functioning and alive except her brain which was almost totally gone.

Imagine the opposite, total paralysis and organ failure except for a fully functioning and totally aware brain.

What level of human body failure is enough to be considered dead?

Quote from: "thiolsulfate"What level of human body failure is enough to be considered dead?

When do we legally declare someone dead? When do we medically declare someone dead? When are they dead practically?
When my daughter was in the hospital too long, I saw a child brought in from an accident. His family was not immediately available. The doctors kept his heart beating and his lungs breathing for two reasons. Families like to say good by to a breathing if comatose body rather than a corpse. Second the doctors needed permission to transplant the organs.

Quote from: "thiolsulfate"I'm curious about what you qualify as death? At what point in the process of dying is a person considered, for all intents and purposes, no longer?

I bring this up because a very recent but very brief acquaintance has become seriously ill. (I suppose the relative brevity that I knew her makes it easier for me to confront this idea.)

She spent two weeks in the mountains and upon returning became very rapidly ill. She developed serious breathing problems and is now breathing by respirator. I'm guessing it's some form of pneumonia followed by lung failure.

This got me thinking; not too long ago lung failure of that magnitude would have meant death. She lives because the machine is inflating her lungs for her. Things like pacemakers allow the heart to keep beating even though the heart itself has become a failed organ.

There's the wretched case of Terri Schaivo whose parents insisted that she would make a full recovery even though most of her brain had liquefied. For all intents and purposes every system of her body was functioning and alive except her brain which was almost totally gone.

Imagine the opposite, total paralysis and organ failure except for a fully functioning and totally aware brain.

What level of human body failure is enough to be considered dead?

Hmm. Let's say one argued that death occurs at an event that is causally linked to your undeniable death. By "undeniable" death I mean a hypothetical state of death so obvious that nobody would argue that you were dead. Lets say "undeniable" death is the point at which you have no physical remains. You might have decomposed for example. So your definitely dead at this point, right? =) Now, if you are dead at an event that is causally linked to your state of "undeniable" death, then you are dead at the moment of birth.

I'm not sure if that's what you mean?

It would take more than a causal relation to convince me that someone is dead. I prefer criteria such as their not breathing for an extended period of time, no pulse, etc; I prefer things that demonstrate convincingly that there is no possibility of them returning to consciousness.

I've wondered about this quite a bit.  I was in a coma for nine days and had a space of time of which I have no recollection which extended substantially beyond the actually coma.  I experienced a personality change, which may have had an organic cause or may have had to do with the psychological trauma I was undergoing.  Much later, I discovered that parts of my self were missing.  I had forgotten things, big things.

Is the person who lived before the injury really still alive?

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I've wondered about this quite a bit.  I was in a coma for nine days and had a space of time of which I have no recollection which extended substantially beyond the actually coma.  I experienced a personality change, which may have had an organic cause or may have had to do with the psychological trauma I was undergoing.  Much later, I discovered that parts of my self were missing.  I had forgotten things, big things.

Is the person who lived before the injury really still alive?

I'm tempted to go a little further. To what extent is the person I was 3 minutes ago still alive? In a sense, he isn't alive at all. He is no longer free to act because he no longer exists. My consciousness has moved on. I guess the question is to what extent my present consciousness identifies with my past consciousness. I don't identify strongly with it because I cannot be it, I can only reflect on it. It is not my consciousness but rather a memory of consciousness.

So to combine this with my previous post, it isn't because I will inevitably die that I am dieing. I am alive. It is the I that preceded me that is dead. And when I eventually die in the future, it is the same kind of death I die in every moment.

Lol, I bet that makes no sense.

A personality is not an event, it's a continuum. We're an ongoing series of events connected only by the illusion of a single body (which is itself constantly changing and replacing bits of itself, making it a continuum, too).

Even the demarcation of when that series ends is fairly vague, and essentially a construct borne of the human need to classify and put things into a hierarchy.

I've found no clean line between "alive" and "dead", every attempt to draw one ends up being unfair to someone who comes close to death in some way. Saying it's the cessation  of activity in the prefrontal lobes dooms those in a coma, something that can be recovered from. Saying it's the cessation of metabolism doesn't quite work, as someone with no breathing, no heartbeat, and no brain function will have metabolic functions days later in other organs.

Because of the fuzziness of it all, I always recommend to people that they have  "living will" which defines where you draw the line. Otherwise, who knows where others will decide. People can go utterly nuts about death. (As in Terri Schiavo's case.)

Thanks for all the responses, that's some awesome input.

QuoteHmm. Let's say one argued that death occurs at an event that is causally linked to your undeniable death. By "undeniable" death I mean a hypothetical state of death so obvious that nobody would argue that you were dead. Lets say "undeniable" death is the point at which you have no physical remains. You might have decomposed for example. So your definitely dead at this point, right? =) Now, if you are dead at an event that is causally linked to your state of "undeniable" death, then you are dead at the moment of birth.

I'm not sure if that's what you mean?

It would take more than a causal relation to convince me that someone is dead. I prefer criteria such as their not breathing for an extended period of time, no pulse, etc; I prefer things that demonstrate convincingly that there is no possibility of them returning to consciousness.

I don't have a clear definition of death, I can say, however, that I'm not speaking of death in the philosophical/transcendental sense -- that every new things signals the death of the old. I'm getting at dead as in no-longer-a-person.

(Just an aside, the woman I was writing about I do not and did not consider to be dead. She's still totally aware, I suspect her condition, though serious, is entirely curable and she will very likely return to normal health.)

I guess the best way to go about this is to present the two poles and see where in the middle each of us will fall:

Imagine two individuals, totally immobile, except--

One body is entirely maintained artificially, except having a functioning brain, is that one still alive? Consciousness but no chance of homeostasis.

The other body is fully functioning, but the brain is entirely absent? Total homeostasis but no hope of consciousness.

Which is dead? Are either? Are they both?

I can't say I'm quite certain about defining death either beyond the obvious.  I can say though that the emotional ramifications of it are much bigger for me as an atheist than they ever were as a theist.  That's pretty obvious as well I suppose.  

Sidenote: there's a series of lectures from a Yale course on death on youtube... has anyone here watched them?  I admit I haven't yet gotten past the first one, but it looks very interesting. the professor seemed to be taking it in a more naturalistic direction... sans afterlife I think.  link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2J7wSuFRl8)

I think true believers don't die, which is why people die painfully, like Billy Mays and Micheal Jackson did.

^ I honestly cannot figure out what on Earth that means.

Quote from: "ilovegodalot"I think true believers don't die, which is why people die painfully, like Billy Mays and Micheal Jackson did.

????

Quote from: "ilovegodalot"I think true believers don't die, which is why people die painfully, like Billy Mays and Micheal Jackson did.

Wow, that is cool. It is nice to know that true believers are not people. Since they don't die, we might as well put them on display in a zoo for eternity and don't bother to feed them   .

It would appear that true believers are zombies.

Wait... we knew that already.