# Immortality, who wants to live forever?



## Urien (Dec 1, 2006)

Let's say in the near future science comes up with a simple method to ensure immortality in humans; barring disease and accident we could live forever. 

What would the implications be, would you want to be immortal, could you stand it, how might life on Earth change?

Would you ever do anything dangerous again?

This might actually be possible in our lifetimes, especially true for the younger ones out there. Here's an interesting site for those interested.

Immortality Institute ~ For Infinite Lifespans


----------



## Pyan (Dec 1, 2006)

Not for me: Death is the Gift of Man.

Who Wants to Live Forever


----------



## Urien (Dec 1, 2006)

Interesting, So let's say I have a little green pill. Once you take it you're locked, no more aging. You wouldn't take it?


----------



## Pyan (Dec 1, 2006)

No way. I agree with Lazarus Long (in _Time Enough for Love_) and Louis Wu (in _Ringworld_). Long life would be as much a burden as a blessing.

And you'd _better_ be offering perpetual youth, as well as perpetual life_._ Remember Tithonus!

Mythography | The Greek Lovers Tithonus and Eos in Myth and Art


----------



## Azathoth (Dec 1, 2006)

Man, I wouldn't want to live forever. Without death, can you imagine how stale life would become? All of human history would lock up forever; there would be no need for ambition, there would be no need for reflection, and life would eventually degenerate to the point where each new day merely becomes an exercise in finding *some* new sensation. 

Also, even if one could stop cellular mutations, or if science could somehow turn off our cells' kill switches (or whatever else actually causes aging), could we really stop the process of psychological decay? After three hundred years had passed, would we actually remember what had happened throughout the first hundred years, or would each so many years simply replace previous years (in other words, do we truly have unlimited storage space in our long-term memory, or is there a limit)? 

Seems like there are too many questions and what-if's associated with biological immortality - give me a sweet, happy death, and a healthy dose of hope, and I'll be happy.


----------



## Cloud (Dec 1, 2006)

hmm.  sometimes I'm tired of this life; sometimes I'm afraid of dying.  I think it's one of those things like money--too much can sometimes be a bad thing, more burden than not.  

I wouldn't take the pill unless we had someplace, like another planet, for our excess population to go to, though.  We have too many people already without making room for more!


----------



## Pointfinder (Dec 1, 2006)

Are you all kidding?  I'd gobble those pills down faster than a duck on a junebug!  Even just hiking through the woods everyday is a miracle if you only open your eyes to the wonders that abound.  I don't see how living would ever become tiresome.  It would be awesome to watch my children grow old and watch their children marry and so on.  It would never bore me.  I love life, I want to live forever!  Am I vain, shallow, selfish...yes! but I also have a few good qualities, so hopefully it balances out.  I suppose I am setting myself up for some real dissapointment, but hey isn't that part of life as well?  True, there's only one thing we all *have* to do on this planet, but we dont have to be happy about it.


----------



## Pyan (Dec 1, 2006)

Pointfinder said:


> It would be awesome to watch my children grow old and watch their children marry and so on


 
But if this was a generally available pill, then presumably they'd use it and not grow old either. How long before population pressure makes the earth incapable of sustaining life, with no woods left to walk through? Or would the pill only be available for....certain people? Who would control its distribution? Would there be a black market in immortality? We would divide into Longlifers and Ephemerals, and for a probable outcome of that, just read _Methusalah's Children_ by Heinlein.
No thanks.


----------



## steve12553 (Dec 1, 2006)

Unfortunately, I am an eternal optimist. I always believe there is a chance and that things will get better. What that means is that I have no specific fear of death. I am afraid of things that can kill me but I always believe I will survive. As far as I can tell I will live forever. As a matter of fact, that is one of my goals. I have too many books to read and I'll be damned if people just won't stop writing more.


----------



## Cloud (Dec 1, 2006)

immortality has always been a part of my deepest MarySue fantasies.  It would be okay as long as _everyone_ wasn't immortal.  And as long as I didn't have people wanting to chop my head off.


----------



## Pointfinder (Dec 1, 2006)

Yes, of course "the pill" would open a Pandora's Box of problems; some we could easily forsee such as overpopulation, etc., and many others we would never imagine.  We have all studied history and we know that civilizations come and go.  There is no guarantee that humanity will survive eternally and there is no way to stop scientific progress.  We are already grappling with those very problems now.  The average lifespan in the West is something like 80, while just 50 years ago it was what, maybe 60?  Some scientists believe that number will grow to 140 in a few decades, and thats just with medical progress.  If you gave me the chance to take "the pill" I would despite the inevitable problems associated with it.   Hey, if you change your mind after 150 yrs or so there's allways another "pill" to end it all.  To each his/her own, just trying to be honest.  I'll pick up that book by Heinlein, its a fascinating topic.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 1, 2006)

Something that was mentioned, but hasn't been discussed much here: Death (or, rather, the awareness of it on an unconscious level) is what drives human beings in their ambitions, to strive, and overcome. Without that fear, the danger of stagnation for the majority would greatly increase, and for those who are highly sensitive, it would tend to become completely unbearable. And Pointfinder, I think you haven't really thought this out. Immortality? Yes, you could have those experiences and enjoy them for a long time, perhaps even centuries. But _true immortality_ would soon leech things of their savor. The very fact that things are ephemeral is what makes them so precious. If they are endlessly repeatable, they lose that quality -- just look at any behavior that is that way, and how human beings tend to react over a long course of time with that behavior: They keep trying to make it more exciting. 

And, if only some people were taking the pill, then they would watch those they are around wither and die. Now, someone who is totally self-absorbed, and lacks empathy (we're talking near sociopathic level, here) might not be affected by this. But most would either become calloused, or those losses would begin to hurt far too much for you to ever care for someone again for fear of going through that inevitable loss again, and again, and again.... Either way, the emotional connection to other people would almost unavoidably be damaged, permanently.

And, for those who love live, it would be even worse, as most would begin to find themselves more and more afraid of taking chances, and perhaps encountering fatal accidents or the malice of others, etc., the longer they live the more they'd be likely to become encysted as that life became more precious than the adventures they would experience by becoming involved, at the risk of losing that life. (Or having it damaged -- immortality as a paraplegic? Perhaps irreparably, no matter what medicine achieves? There are likely to be such, at very least for a long time to come. How long would you be willing to be in that position? Or totally paralyzed, not even able to speak? Would you be willing to risk this by going out on these hikes, or rock climbing, or even driving in the increasing rush-hour-traffic?)

And the population problem: As it increases, so will crime due to displacement -- heck, that's going to become worse and worse anyway, as automation makes more and more jobs obsolete without us getting our heads out of our butts to make use of the _human_ potential of human beings! Imagine what it will be like as the population becomes so massive that our resources are depleted within a quarter century! (As I've mentioned elsewhere, just in the 30 years since I've graduated, the world's population has close to doubled. In the last century, it's close to tripled, if not more than, and this in a century where we've managed to kill ourselves off in greater numbers than perhaps any time in history. Mass enforced sterilization, anyone?)

Even longevity presents us with these problems: As our lifespan has increased, so has our unwillingness to take risks, overall. People want things safer. (Yes, there are the danger sports and such, but the number who engage in those is incredibly minute, compared to the everyday risks that we used to face without giving them a second thought.) Heck, they won't even let their kids play on playgrounds without special padding or turfing anymore in many places! And fewer and fewer places will you see people letting their kids get into the (quite normal) scuffles that children have always engaged in as part of their socializing process. Not fun, but one does learn valuable lessons from it for dealing with other people throughout life. Without those experiences, people are less and less able to cope with others. Can you imagine how less likely people will be to risk their children having any injuries in such a scenario as immortality, _especially_ if only a very few are allowed to have children -- say, to match the number of people who die through serious disease or accident within each year?

And as for getting us out into space -- if we're less willing to take risks here, what on earth is going to goad people out into the most dangerous environment of all, where there is no room for error? Population pressure? More likely we'd start enforced euthenasia before we'd risk that. Fear is an incredibly powerful force, especially when people don't acknowledge what it is they're afraid of. The monster is _always _more frightening when you don't allow yourself to see it, you know. Eventually, we might start such a drive ... but once it gets going, you'd have different camps: those who feel that this is unnatural and against God's plan and who resist it; those who want to go out there and colonize and are actually willing to take the risk, but aren't fit (for whatever physical or mental reason) to go, those who are but are afraid to go, those who can go and are willing, but will be severing ties with all they know and so pull back for that reason... and the few remaining who are both fit and willing and able to make that final emotional adjustment that they will be leaving Earth forever, along with everyone and everything they've known and loved, to never encounter either again (one hell of an emotional readjustment to make!). And those who are found wanting are quite likely to fight the whole thing viciously, including with riots and bloodshed.

No, thank you. Death is our goad to actually grow as a species, as well as individuals. There may indeed be the extremely rare individual for whom immortality would be a blessing ... but I'd venture to say that they are considerably less than one in a hundred million. For the rest, it would rapidly become a living hell.

Personally, I would like a bit more longevity (I think), in order to see a few things come to fruition, to learn more, and read more, to see places I've always wanted to see but not been able to. But immortality, no. That's a fate that makes the Mariner's albatross seem a puny punishment indeed.


----------



## nixie (Dec 1, 2006)

No thanks.If immortality was available to all, life would go stale.If you were the only one, how long could you carry on watching loved ones die?You'd grow lonely and bitter, stop making friends.Death I may fear but ultimately I welcome it.


----------



## Sibeling (Dec 1, 2006)

If everyone was immortal, people probably would get terribly tired of life. They would have all the time in the world, so they would do everything they always wanted, try every foreign food, go to every foreign country, read every book, and then they would have no new experiences to get. Life would get boring, and they would not even be able to die. That would be real hell.


----------



## Harpo (Dec 1, 2006)

Exploring the galaxies would be good, and immortality would provide the time to do so.  How about giving the immortality pill only to those who set out on such a journey?
I agree though that earthbound immortality would not be a good thing.


----------



## Paige Turner (Dec 1, 2006)

'I'm not afraid of dying. Why should I be afraid? There's no reason for it. You've got to go sometime."

I'll bet 90% of you have heard this quote, but if somebody can name the source, I'll be very impressed.

As to death, I want something dramatic, probably gravity-related, maybe fiery. Real front-page stuff. 

*Skydiving Centenarian Brings Rush Hour To Standstill.**
'I thought it was a meteor until I saw the gumboots' says shaken trucker*

Oh yeah.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Dec 1, 2006)

Hehe. 

Hmm...No, I don't think I'd be interested in immortality. There's only so much to see in this life. And even if things do constantly change it will ultimately get tiresome. 

I'm still at a point in my life when I consider myself immortal, in the sense that I don't consider the possibility of something happening to me, I believe I'll have a long and happy life and won't die until I'm very old (which I hope will happen!), which at this age seems like an eternity away.

I think I'd like a bit more longevity. Maybe be able to live for a couple of centuries. Have time to do pretty much everything I want before I go. I don't fear death (although I certainly don't want it to come anytime soon and I definitely don't want it to be painful!) and I don't believe that there's anything 'waiting for me' after death. And I'm not scared of this, I happily accept that this is our one chance and after that is just nothing. (_If_ there _is_ something, I'll be momentarily surprised, but I think I'll be able to get used to it quite quickly!)

I'd prefer to gain immortality the other way, as in doing something so momentous in the time I've got that will cause people to remember me for centuries to come. Preferably through writing, but hey, if I discover a cure for the common cold or something like that, I don't mind receiving eternal acknowledgement for it!


----------



## Threddy (Dec 1, 2006)

What age would you be if you lived forever, if i took the little green pill as such, would I be 13 forever?
Some parts of it would be very good. Others not!
The problem is we would all die in 4 and a half billion years anyway unless we work out how to travel around different solar systems to different planets where we could actually live.


----------



## Urien (Dec 1, 2006)

I'm surprised so many would choose death. The little green pill would mean you would cease aging from your adult state. So around early twenties when one is full grown. If you were seventy you would stay seventy.

I wonder though if truly faced with the little green pill people would not take it. The hypothetical faced with the real.

But yes overcrowding and risk perception would be huge problems. But on the upside each individual would eventually have a vast reservoir of skill and knowledge, long term projects lastin say fifty years would no longer be unusual. We would have the chance for some grand engineering projects.


----------



## Parson (Dec 1, 2006)

I'm happy to settle for the old fashioned kind of living forever: spiritual eternal life. For all of the reasons listed above living forever on this old planet just would not make it. 

But I'm surprised by the response to this post. Why are we struggling so hard to add a few months/years on a person's life that will most likely be highly expensive and highly painful if there is not a large share of us who want to "live forever?"


----------



## Nikitta (Dec 1, 2006)

1) I don't want to live forever
2) I don't want to die

Yeah - I know that's a self-contradicion, but I have both sides in me, but since 1) just feels like an abstract thought, I can't say that I wouldn't take the pill, even if I'd regret it later.

If I had a deadly disease and the pill could cure me of that as well as giving me immortality, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to resist.

Yeah - it could have many bad consequenses for our planet if such a pill became available, but how many would be able to think that far and act on it if the situation was real? We know that many of the things we do already are bad for the planet, but we do them anyway.


----------



## Paige Turner (Dec 1, 2006)

Because I could not stop for Death --
He kindly stopped for me --
The Carriage held but just Ourselves --
And Immortality. 
—Emily Dickinson


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 1, 2006)

Death is nature's way of providing space in a population in order that it can better itself through mutation/evolution. To live forever would effectively sentence the species to stagnation. I agree with j. d. - we need something to drive us and the fear of death does that just fine. 

I don't want to die. I fear it. But, I understand the logic of why one day I must bow to the inevitability of my own death.


----------



## SpaceShip (Dec 1, 2006)

I'd hate to think what the journey along the A21 from Hastings to London would be like - it's horrific now, but if millions (if not billions) of cars had to make the journey - well, need I say more!


----------



## Sharukem (Dec 1, 2006)

honestly who would want to live forever? Like seriously, yea it'd be cool to do so but after at least a couple centuries you will wish that you were dead because you are BORED. to be honest if i could extend my life i would like to live to see my grandkids get married and then perish without anyone knowing about it. that is what i would do. and besides immortality would only cause a bigger loss on natural resources, we would run out faster than they produce. and trees we only haev a certain amount of them before they run out on us just like food and water, by the time we are demanding more they would ahve run out. so as i said yea it would be cool but after a couple centuries you would be bored out of your mind.


----------



## Urien (Dec 1, 2006)

If we were to achieve immortality as suggested in this thought experiment then the following would be possible.

1. If you're fed up of life, then you could end your own life.
2. The prospect of immortality would likely make people think a lot longer term. After all it would no longer be just your children's earth, it would be yours.
3. How do you know you would get bored after 200 years? You might not, would you spend your life and refuse the pill on an assumption?
4. Long term projects around resources, planetary management, taking decades could be reasonably undertaken.


----------



## jackokent (Dec 1, 2006)

I've looked at all the arguments against immortality and they are all good ones.  However i would opt for it every time.  I cannot ever imagine gettig tired of life.  There is so much to see and I've got a crap memory so I'd forget half of it meaning it would all seem fresh after a while.

As for what age I'd freeze at, every year of my life has been better than the one before it so that's a hard question.  I think Late 30's is a great age.  You're old enough so that everyone has to take you seriously, you have an income, a house, a car, holidays, you're in charge of your own life and you've just realised that growing up is a myth made up by teachers.


----------



## Specfiction (Dec 1, 2006)

Talking about Immortality, has anyone seen The Fountain? Took me a day to decide whether I liked it or not.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Dec 1, 2006)

I wouldn't like to be stuck at a certain age all my life. I loved been a child but I also love being this age. 

And I think you would eventually get tired. Just going on...and on...and on...and on _ad infinitum _would get so tiresome. This is immortality we're talking about, people. As in forever. Can you really imagine going on for that long? I don't think people really grasp the idea of infinity, because everything we know comes to an end. You have to stop and think immortality would have no end (unless you chose to end it yourself, of course). Death may seem scary, but I'd be more terrified of having to go on without ever having the chance to...well, just rest.


----------



## SpaceShip (Dec 1, 2006)

RIP Hoops.  Oh, and look at Jackokent's post - he's a millionaire!


----------



## HoopyFrood (Dec 1, 2006)

Heh, thanks Ship.


----------



## Paige Turner (Dec 1, 2006)

Maybe we could all be renewed, and come back as babies!

Quick! To Carousel!


----------



## ScottSF (Dec 1, 2006)

At the very least I would want to live 10,000 years but I bet I could do more.  We are talking about living without aging here.  I'm creative and I believe I would always find something new to learn and discover or even observe.  Now if we really got interstellar travel down then 10,000 years wouldn't be nearly enough.  I think I would take a 5 million year pill with an option to take another one when times up.

A great read on extended live spans is John Varley's Steel Beach.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Dec 1, 2006)

Hmm...give me a situation like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and I might be up for taking on a few more thousand years. With the whole Universe to explore, I'd definitely need a fair few centuries. But I still think that ultimately life would get weary. Extended life is all well and good, but immortality...no, I think that would be too much.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Dec 1, 2006)

I am immortal, already.


----------



## Tau Zero (Dec 2, 2006)

An interesting topic. But i'm all for life; now and ever. Hand me the pill, there is too much to see and do that a thousand years woudn't fill. Immortality means that one _will_ _not_ die; not _cannot_ die. If, after a few dozen millenia, i'm tired of life, i'm sure a few sticks of dynomite to the head will end that issue.

The overpopulation issue is, of course, a very valid one. I think the simple solution is to have the pill not only make you immortal, but sterile too. Yes, you too can live forever, but you're not reproducing!

A lot of this discussion is specualtive (of course), but a clue to human reaction is to look at people who live over 100. A saw on TV a report of a study done on these people, looking for unique characteristics. Now here are people who have outlived friends and family on many occasions, but you know what they were all found to have? A humorous disposition towards life and themselves. The theory that seeing friends and family all die off would be intolerable does not hold true with those actually experiencing it. Also look at people who work fields (like doctors and police) that deal with death and misery on a regular, continuing basis. They too, develop a strong sense of humor, although it can be pretty strange to those not used to it.

I think humans are stronger than you're giving them credit for. I think many people may face hurdles in dealing with immortality at some point, but overall, i think humanity will do just fine.

Just count me in!


----------



## Pointfinder (Dec 2, 2006)

There's nothing new I can add here.  Everyone has hit on the main points.  I would still opt for the pill regardless of the consequences and for those of you who claim you wouldn't I'm not sure I believe all of you, no, infact I do not believe you because I know that self preservation is an ingrained human trait,  if it were not then you most likely would alredy be dead.  There are so many ways to loose your life just through simple daily activities.  We spend a great deal of our time each day simply keeping ourselves out of life threatening situations (do you really want to cross the street when there is a green light?).  It is this same human trait that would cause most of us to opt for the pill when the doc tells you you have only 6 mos to live.

One last thing, please people, do not tell me that *I* would get bored after 200 yrs or whatever number you assign, I would not!  Maybe *you* would, but dont speak for others.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 2, 2006)

TZ -- I agree, there are those who do develop that outlook; they are, however, the exceptions, if you'll look at the numbers. And I've seen far too many older people who lost all interest in life as the last of the relatives of their generation died off -- they felt more and more alienated from the world around them -- and that's something that's not been addressed here. If we freeze at a certain age, there will be no need for advancements, for changes. People in general tend to like what is comfortable and familiar, with only minimal changes. Too much change tends to make a person feel more and more displaced, in most cases. (As I said, there may be the very rare exceptions, but they are very, very rare indeed!) So, if only some choose immortality then yes, the species will continue to "progress", but those who have chosen immortality will be more and more out of touch with those around them, and that gets awful lonely after a while for most people. Also, the scientific evidence indicates that yes, our capacity of memory is finite, and that it's the newer memories that are most likely to be faulty or dropped altogether. This would make this an even bigger problem the longer you live.

No, I gave this a lot of thought when I was quite young, actually, figuring (from some odd thing I picked up in my head as a kid) that such might be a possibility during my lifetime. And I decided, after a lot of thought, that I'd opt out. I've looked at the idea off and on since, and I'd still opt out. Longevity, perhaps (though I'd have to be assured of it being a longevity where I wasn't going to spend the whole thing starving, or in horrendous pain, etc.) ... but the thought of immortality appalls me (for me; anyone who wants to take it is welcome to it, but I'll pass).

Also, TZ -- you're immortal, and that means you're sterile. Can you imagine a world without children _at all_? Would you truly want to live in a world where they simply don't exist any longer? Having children is one of the greatest of joys for many people ... and rightly so. Watching a child grow, develop their own personality, watching the development of that person, is a fascinating thing, nothing can compare to it. For those who chose immortality, that would never be an option.

And I seriously doubt the premise that we'd learn to have a longer-range view. As our lifespans have increased over the last 150 years, have we done so? No. Quite the reverse, actually. It was quite common for people to think of their posterity when their lifespans were between 40 and 60 years. Now, very few take such a view. It used to be quite common for people to devise long-term goals connected with such, even generational plans; now the majority are concerned almost entirely with instant gratification. So I'm afraid that idea simply doesn't hold up against real experience, either.

I don't want a painful death, but death itself long since ceased to frighten me. Oblivion is nothing to be afraid of ... there's no pain, no pleasure, you don't exist -- period. As has been argued, we had it before we were born, why should we complain because we will have it again? I'd rather not die right this moment -- there are things I'd like to do and see -- but if it happens, so what? I won't be there to regret it, to feel robbed or cheated, or anything. The biochemicoelectrical energy that makes up my personality will be dispersed into other forms, but "I" will no longer exist in any form. I'm sorry, but what's to fear in that? No, immortality is simply not an option I'd care for, either here _or_ "hereafter".


----------



## Urien (Dec 2, 2006)

JD have you taken a glum pill today. You'd choose oblivion, nothingness, over existence?

As to no children? Well I could quite easily deal with that. I avoid them anyway. They'd be a replacement rate for children anyway, disease and accident would still get people.

And yes very old folk often feel it's time to go, their generation is dead and they themselves often live in pain, discomfot and physical decay. Clearly none of that would be the case with the pill. I suspect a 100 year old with the body of a thirty year old would have a very different view to a 100 year old, who looks that age.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 2, 2006)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> JD have you taken a glum pill today. You'd choose oblivion, nothingness, over existence?


 
LOL. No, not quite. My point though, is that, after a certain period (which would likely vary considerably from individual to individual), existence itself would become a burden ... for all the reasons listed above, plus others I've not discussed. As I said, I've given this a _lot_ of thought over the years (both as a possibility in the real world, and for fictional purposes).



> As to no children? Well I could quite easily deal with that. I avoid them anyway. They'd be a replacement rate for children anyway, disease and accident would still get people.


 
On that, I was replying to TZ's positing that taking the pill would make you sterile. Ergo -- no more children, for you or anyone else who took the pill. And you may avoid them anyway (many do, including myself in general) ... but can you truly imagine a _society _without children? Children represent so many things to so many people, and are in general so important to the development of a society, that even reducing them to necessary replacements would have a very damaging effect on that society's psychological makeup. Plus there's the simple fact that, as people store up more experience, they tend to become more concretized in their thinking, thus less and less innovation -- which is one of the important elements about children and "new blood". Without them, the species would stagnate. The _individual_ may be able to get along without them just fine. But the _species_ ... no. And even among individuals, the vast majority have a desire to have children, and that's built-in by our entire history biologically, not something that could eradicated (or even seriously modified) any too easily. Would those people care to live with that void eating at them unconsciously day in and day out? I think you'd find that the majority of the human race would not be willing to give up the chance to have children at some point in their lives.



> And yes very old folk often feel it's time to go, their generation is dead and they themselves often live in pain, discomfot and physical decay. Clearly none of that would be the case with the pill. I suspect a 100 year old with the body of a thirty year old would have a very different view to a 100 year old, who looks that age.


 
Not necessarily. Again, this is partly individual personalities. And it depends on how intensely one becomes attached to those one loves, how much one is able to cope with their deaths. I've known people it didn't seem to affect at all ... and others who still felt it keenly after 40 years and more. I went through a loss myself a very long time ago, that still hits me very hard now and again ... to carry that feeling through the centuries? From my readings in psychology (and my experience dealing with psychologists, psychiatrists, etc., who deal with this sort of thing daily), I don't think many would be able to cope with that and remain emotionally accessible to others. They would, perforce become more distant as a matter of self-protection... or they'd find themselves desiring suicide more and more, whether or no they took that option. And this is something that reaches across the age boundaries.

To return to your original here: As I've stated, I'd like to live longer (a century or two more, anyway), probably, as long as I was able to use it in such a way as to profit by it; but more than that, I simply wouldn't care for. There are too many psychological factors that tend to wear on people as they experience more of life, and those just cannot be eradicated by being "frozen" at a particular age, with the robust health of that age, indefinitely. Their effects may indeed be lessened, even lessened quite a bit ... but they're incremental, and they don't go away.

And as for exploring the galaxy (or other galaxies, the universe, etc.) -- while I agree that would be an incredible adventure, human irascibility proves that people cannot be cooped up in such a confined space (as a ship, even a very large, miles-long/wide ship) for such an extended period without eruptions of violence. It simply can't happen. Try going through a six-month period with someone you really care about without getting into an argument, without feeling petty resentments build. Now multiply that by however many people you have in such a mission, and then go exponentially for the various webs of interactions, and you'll soon see that no group of people (as we are now -- perhaps we'll evolve into something different, or find a workable psychology for dealing with such things, but I doubt it) could stand each other for that long ... and it's not a situation where one can pack up one's bags and leave. You're stuck there, _permanently_. Eventually, someone's going to pull out the knives ... literally. And as for an individual making such a trip alone ... try going six months to a year without being around another human being. We simply wouldn't survive sanely. We're just not put together that way.

I'm not being a pessimist here, but I am being a _realist_. Immortality _sounds_ nice, at first blush, but the more one thinks about it without rose-colored vision, just looking at the realities of life added into the bargain, the less attractive it becomes. An eternity of this? As I said, there may be the rare individual who could not only stand it, but enjoy it. However, I think that, if you really give it long and serious thought, that likelihood diminishes considerably. We're fighting against our entire evolutionary history here, and all the things it's instilled in us on a cellular and instinctive level, and that's just something you can't overcome with any little green pill.

So, in comparison with existence on the level of immortality ... yes, I'd definitely choose oblivion. Because immortality is something I know full well I could stand neither together with someone (nor the entire human race) nor alone. I agree with Hoopy here. I don't think most people have any really deep appreciation of what the word means... a true conceptual _feeling_ for such a span of time. A lifetime -- even a very _long _lifetime of 150 years or better ... yes. _Eternity?_ No.


----------



## Tau Zero (Dec 2, 2006)

JD,

Your points are good, but i think they're your perceptions, not the reality you claim since immortality doesn't occur. 

As in most circumstances, people make their own "hell" or "heaven." I've seen people living in terrific places bemoaning the fact that they have to live there and i've seen people live in lousy places and finding it wonderful. My point here is the concept of the self-fulfilling prophesy. If you expect it to be bad, it will be bad. 

You state that existance would become a burden. That death is the goad to grow. There's nothing to support this view. I certainly don't accomplish the things i've done because death lurks in my future. 

As for a world without children, i never meant to imply that! That would be a horror. Not to have any children left in the world, would mean that everyone would have to take the pill before puberty; i never meant that. Many people mentioned that being around 30 years old is a great age to be immortal. Most of the people i know have children by 30. Immortality is voluntary, so have and raise your kids, and when you're done and want to live forever, take the pill. The population would grow as it does now, but we wouldn't have immortals reproducing for millenia.

Immortality can work for anyone who sees something left to do. There is so much i want do that i couldn't estimate the number of millenia it would take. There is just so much to do out there and it takes so long to be great at all of them.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 2, 2006)

Tau Zero said:


> JD,
> 
> Your points are good, but i think they're your perceptions, not the reality you claim since immortality doesn't occur.


 
Eh? Perhaps there's been a miscommunication, and I wasn't clear in my phrasing. The reality I refer to is the findings of psychology/psychiatry and the physiology of the brain -- as far as I know, no, there isn't anyplace immortality has taken place (then again..... ). All the indications are that the brain really does have a limited capacity for storing memories and experiences, and that, the closer one comes to that limit, the more partial and spotty the memories become, finally getting to a point where they aren't retained at all. And, again, the psychological factors enter in here, as well, in that, as experiences become repeatable, they begin to lose their novelty-value, and can (and eventually do) become dull, even feeling like a punishment eventually. Anything will take on that cast given long enough, no matter what it is. That's the way our psychology works. An eternity of experience (as opposed to a prolonged existence) would inevitably have that effect, as there's only a limited amount of experience that the brain would be able to take in, and the more experiences, the more one begins to see similarities to other experiences, as well, until eventually (though in exploring the universe, etc., this might take a tremendously long time) they simply become too similar, and lack enough contrast to excite interest. As I say, there may be the very rare exceptions, but look at the figures, and you'll find this is true for the vast majority of human beings.



> As in most circumstances, people make their own "hell" or "heaven." I've seen people living in terrific places bemoaning the fact that they have to live there and i've seen people live in lousy places and finding it wonderful. My point here is the concept of the self-fulfilling prophesy. If you expect it to be bad, it will be bad.


 
There's certainly a fair amount of truth to this. People can turn a paradise into hell in their own mind, and vice versa (within limits, of course, especially for the latter -- if you're in a plague zone, or surrounded by death and destruction on a massive scale, the only way to turn that into a pleasant place is by use of some form of severe denial of reality, becoming delusional; but of course those are the very, very extremes). But there comes a point where the effects of the pain around you cannot be fended off without recourse to something of that sort, as the world situation worsens (which it is likely to do, as people will continue to breed, and with immortality, you'd end up with even worse population problems, or enforced sterility -- neither of which is a desirable outcome).



> You state that existance would become a burden. That death is the goad to grow. There's nothing to support this view. I certainly don't accomplish the things i've done because death lurks in my future.


 
Again, this is supported by an enormous amount of research in psychology. It is almost never on a conscious level, granted; but that goad is there, nonetheless, as death permeates our worldview, however much we shut our eyes to it ... we're aware of it from a very early age, and we're surrounded with it every day -- the newscasts, friends and family members that die, or hearing about it from neighbors, friends, schoolmates, etc., etc., etc. It isn't a negative thing, as it prompts us to strive to improve things in so many areas, from medicine (where it most certainly is the major incentive -- the desire to conquer death and the illnesses that lead to it) to exploration (perhaps even to the stars), for _lebensraum _because of overcrowding and the danger of starvation, etc. It, along with the sexual instinct (which, it is often argued, is closely linked to this on the most basic level as the instinct for survival, even if only through progeny) powers vast amounts of what we do: Improvements in our hygiene, improvements in our foods and food preservation.... all stem from a desire to prolong life ... and what is that but a fear of its opposite?

As for the "world without children" -- I apologize. I misread your intent on that post. However, there we run (once again) into the problems with population pressure, and the impact of that on resources, and the social impact of that, including increasingly draconian measures concerning childbearing and child-rearing.

There's also another aspect that's not been discussed. I see a lot of talk about doing the things we want to do, whether it be exploring nature, travel, going to see other worlds, etc. ... but how is that to be financed individually? Doesn't that mean continuing to work indefinitely? While there may be quite a few who truly enjoy their jobs, anyone out there think that they'd like to stick with that job forever? And if not ... again, you've got the competition growing as the population grows (and while immortality may be voluntary, even if it has disastrous effects as I predict, people will take the chance, and the population will continue to skyrocket). Not to mention the fact that automation will (even if we stopped having children today) increase at least for a good while, and that's going to eliminate more and more ways to earn an income, as the machines become better able to provide any goods or services than people, more quickly and efficiently and without all the necessary benefits packages.

Again, I stress that I am not denying the attractions of immortality; but I am arguing from a more realistic viewpoint based not on the existence of immortality, but extrapolating the effects from the known psychological/emotional makeup of the majority of human beings, and our history, and how very poorly we are equipped emotionally to deal with even mild boredom, let alone the kind that most people would experience with immortality. Let's face it, the vast majority of people are extremely limited in imagination, even in being able to entertain themselves (partially the fault of lack of nurturing that quality in our educational system and often at home, but also largely because the majority simply lack the ability to stretch their imaginations, and are frankly disinclined to try) ... can you imagine what would happen with that problem being compounded by an _eternity_ of boredom? 

I am sure that there are strong-enough-minded individuals to enjoy an immensely prolonged lifespan, _if _they are allowed to live it freely. But I'm afraid that _anyone_ would eventually reach a limit on this, if we're talking true immortality. (Longevity is another thing.) And in the meantime, we aren't isolates; we interact with our societies, and that interaction would play an enormous role in how enjoyable such a prospect would or would not be.

Has anyone thought about this aspect of it: All the nations we know now are relatively young, from the point of view of our existence as human beings. Even the oldest is only a few thousand years in age. The vast majority are considerably younger. America is, of course, only roughly two centuries in age (three-and-a-half, if you go back to the landing at Plymouth, for the current predominant culture). Now -- how much longer will any of these nations be around? Some will not last out the century. Most will not last the next thousand years. Nations are, by and large, precariously stable things. While it might be fascinating to watch the changes, how many will care to live through the changes, in the thick of them ... especially if their nation is one that no longer exists as such? And that is only one aspect to consider.

At any rate, I think I'll withdraw, as I've filled up far too much space as it is. It's a good discussion, and I may pop back in now and again; but it's time I shut up and let others speak, I think. (Looking back over this post, I'd say it's long _past_ time!) However -- for the aspiring writers out there, I hope that both sides have provided food for thought, so that anyone interested in writing a story on the subject has had their imagination stimulated to start extrapolating and giving serious consideration to what the implications of such a change would be. The better thought-through this is (whichever direction you decide), the better your stories will be; the more thought-provoking as well as more entertaining....


----------



## jackokent (Dec 2, 2006)

SpaceShip said:


> RIP Hoops. Oh, and look at Jackokent's post - he's a millionaire!


 
I wish!

But that's the point and I think Tau Zero made it much better than me, I don't need to be a millionaire.  You can be happy with the life you are living whatever it is (obviously there are exceptions ie you can't feed yourself or people are oppressing you, you're ill etc).  I haven't got the perfect life by any means if you were looking at it from the outside, I work silly hours that many people would hate.  But for me it's perfect. This is why I can not imagine not wanting to prolong life... cause it's so great.  Everything can be fun, even long boring meetings can be fun if you want to make them fun.  

So if you are having such a great time why on earth would you not want to prolong it.  And yes I know too much of a good thing can be bad, but I subscribe to the view that too much of a good thing can be wonderful.  

There have been a number of views here expressed about death making you grow.  I agree, but I doubt its the ONLY way to make you grow.  Humans are resourceful, we'd find other ways, or at least we'd have a go.  No one want's not to grow afterall, and just think how much growing we'd do if we had all that time.

And lastly, if we did all get cheesed off with immortality we could start looking for a cure.  And we'd have ages to find one.  Not like now where we're all looking for a cure for death and the clock's ticking.

In the imortal words of Robbie Williams "I'm not scared of dying, I just don't want to."


----------



## HoopyFrood (Dec 2, 2006)

It's great having such a perfect life...but think, having to do that every day for eternity. Day in and day out, doing the same thing. Yes, it might seem like bliss at the moment, and it might still seem like that after 100 years or so...but what about after a million? Or a billion? 

Immortality does sound like a wonderful idea, but it's just too much in my eyes. Life is, as the saying goes, too short at the moment, so I would happily accept a few more centuries...but I just couldn't go on for the rest of time. Even though the world is an amazing place, with so much to see and do...with the rest of eternity to do it all, even that will eventually become tiresome. And I think that change would probably stop occuring after a while...it may take a long time (but hell, you have a _great_ deal of time on your hands) but eventually it will get to the point where all needs are catered for, humans would want for nothing, life would be perfect...but monotonous. 

Nope, I have to say, I really would not accept immortality. Long life...yeah, bring it on...but not immortality. No thanks.


----------



## jackokent (Dec 2, 2006)

HoopyFrood said:


> It's great having such a perfect life...but think, having to do that every day for eternity. Day in and day out, doing the same thing. .


 
I'd take my chances, and life is only perfect becuase of the ups and down, not doing the same things day in day out.  I am not talking about white sand, beauitful people perfect, I am talking about the fact that there are trees and books and things you've never seen and people you haven't met and problems to get over and arguments to make up from .. or not.  That's what makes life perfect and maybe I have no imagination but I don't see how that could ever get boring.

However I can't imagine 10million years ahead it's just too far away so I'd take my chances and give it a go.


----------



## Locksmith (Dec 2, 2006)

I'm just worried for the actuaries. I mean, they have a difficult enough job as it is, without everyone being immortal. You'd definitely have to work past 65, or even 68...

Anyway, I'd take the pill - I've got more stuff I'd like to do than I'm likely to have time for.


----------



## mosaix (Dec 2, 2006)

Some good arguments here, for and against. 

I do believe that, providing someone wasn't actually seeking death, that on thier deathbed _most_ people given the choice of continuing to live would grasp it with both hands.

Everlasting life for me - no question.

BTW I think it has been calculated that, given the medical ability to extend life indefinately, average life span would be between 700 and 800 because of accidents.


----------



## The Ace (Dec 2, 2006)

Enjoy it, but count me out.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Dec 2, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:


> I agree with Hoopy here.


 
Wow...I mean...wow...JD agreed with me on something?!.....Whoa.... 

Can everyone really imagine living for a billion years, 4 billion years, 10 billion years...etc? Doesn't that kind of concept just make your head spin? It's such an outrageously large amount of time that I don't think anyone could really grasp it properly. Nope, I just couldn't do it. I agree with Ace...count me out.


----------



## SpaceShip (Dec 2, 2006)

jackokent said:


> In the imortal words of Robbie Williams "I'm not scared of dying, I just don't want to."



I think I'd want to die if it came to having the immortal words of Robbie Williams thrown at me!!

But another thought has just struck me - what if the world suddenly came to a halt and we all sort of went into reverse, gradually getting younger and not being able to do anything about it.  Knowing things like the embarrassing thing you did on 22 April 1994 (and I suppost some joker will ask me what that was in my case!) was about to happen and you just had to take it.


----------



## jackokent (Dec 2, 2006)

SpaceShip said:


> I think I'd want to die if it came to having the immortal words of Robbie Williams thrown at me!!
> 
> But another thought has just struck me - what if the world suddenly came to a halt and we all sort of went into reverse, gradually getting younger and not being able to do anything about it. Knowing things like the embarrassing thing you did on 22 April 1994 (and I suppost some joker will ask me what that was in my case!) was about to happen and you just had to take it.


 
Good point about Robbie Williams there. 

The idea of going backward is just too complicated.  How would that work? For instance, would you start off being sick at a party and then get steadily more sober?


----------



## Redhawk (Dec 2, 2006)

Very interesting topic!  Many different ways of looking at such an opportunity that's a given.  Once not exactly mentioned that occurs to me is that anyone who is a Christian, already HAS taken "the pill" since that belief system entails Everlasting Life as part of the gift.

The argument after acceptance and that leap of faith is an on-going debate in some circles since most of the more fundamental faiths would dictate that you die, go into the ground, or are cremated...some believe you MUST go into the ground whole and shun cremation...and will rise again when Christ returns in the second coming.  While many of the more "modern" or "airy fairy," New Age Christians are wont to believe we might be reincarnated or go more directly to heaven...in spirit form.  (OH and FYI...the fundamentalist would probably consider ME to be of the Airy Fairy garden-tree-hugging type of Christian...I'm a bit of a hy-bred.*)

For the sake of keeping to the theme here...lets say that if you choose to accept Christ as your savior and that, you do then, in fact have eternal life.  What do you do with THAT?  Learn to play the harp really well?  Play all day in a meadow of flowers with all the dogs you ever had throughout your earthly existence?  Continue doing many of the same things, creatively, in heaven as you did on earth?  Develop the voice of an Angel and sing in the heavenly choir?

Makes me wonder!  I'd not given it much thought in terms of, What will I do all day...after day...after day...after day.....

* In my personal faith, I'm rock solid in my acceptance and relationship with Christ.  Where I dive off the path is that I'm aware that the Bible was written by HUMANS, and while I would assume inspired by God, The Great Mystery...I also know it was RE-Written by yet more humans...and though I believe much of it...I kinda prefer to go to The Source my own self when I have questions.  I've learned that I always get an answer....even if it's not one I would claim to "like" when I get it.  I also don't believe that it's my "job" to shove God down someone else's throat and insist they are wrong in their beliefs...sharing ideas is one thing...but beliefs are personal and ya gots to find yur own! or don't...choosing not to make a choice...is also a choice!

I take a lot of things on faith.  Mostly, that I don't have to have all the answers, or understand everything 100% because I believe that ultimately "someone else" knows what's going on, what should go on and what will go on.  Sure we have free will, we make our choices...but far be it from ME to try and impose limitations or judgments on the Almighty! roflmao....ahhh...perhaps NOT is my thought on it.

But...would I want to live forever, in THIS body, in THIS time and place...with TIME itself racing along all around me, while I stay myself as I am....???  I don't think so...this is my NOW and it's wonderful, sometimes frustrating, sometimes frightening, sometimes tiring, sometimes so full of joy and love I think I'll burst from fullness...but it is the moment I am in.  Where I'll be and what I'll be in two years, or ten, or 100 I don't know...but that I will be...I am assured.  I would hate to think I had a better idea and miss out on what ever adventure is awaiting my arrival.  I will be where I should be when I get there, without a lot of fiddle faddle on my part.

I agree with much already said here for NOT taking the pill...not for all the same reasons...but the ideas ring true for me none the less. If I can't get "something" of value accomplished in the time I am meant to be here...shame on me...  Obviously, this decision would be as personal to each as many other decisions in life are found to be.  With my "luck" I'd simply procrastinate all the more gleefully and still manage not to get anything done!

Great topic...great ideas and perspectives!


----------



## Urien (Dec 2, 2006)

Thanks Redhawk good points. If one is of a religious persuasion then of course the life eternal is already guaranteed, hence the need for the pill vanishes. Unless of course one merely takes it as a another form of medical advance, (of which we routinely partake), and as we've being given intellects and curiousity, therefore part of the creators plan anyway.


----------



## The Pelagic Argosy (Dec 2, 2006)

Locksmith said:


> I'm just worried for the actuaries. I mean, they have a difficult enough job as it is, without everyone being immortal. You'd definitely have to work past 65, or even 68...



Heh heh.  I'm sure Locksmith is being facetious here.  But it makes me think of something.  I think some people who are afraid of getting bored might be thinking of immortality as one long retirement:  you might finally do some traveling, focus on a few hobbies, play a lot of bingo...and then what?  Yeah, that would certainly be boring.  

J.D. said awhile back that, even with our longer life expectancy, things haven't changed much in 150 years.  Actually, I think things have changed dramatically.  Back then, death wasn't associated with old age as it is now.  People died of diseases that we now have cures for, complications from childbirth, mining accidents, etc.  (Many of these things are still a problem in underdeveloped countries.)  These days we die of cancer, heart attacks, strokes -- age-related illnesses that were unheard of back then.  

People didn't think of "retirement" as a life stage like we do now.  Some people, if they plan well financially and stay healthy, can expect to spend as many years in happy retirement as they did working.  Society has shifted in dramatic ways as a result of our aging population.  In some ways it has become a crisis, in terms of social security and health insurance, etc.  But, in other ways, it's positive.  People actually look forward to the "golden years:"  the freedom, the traveling, spoiling the grandkids.  Some people even start second careers.  65 is the new 40, you know.  (Or maybe I've just seen too many menopause commercials.)  

If such dramatic shifts have occured as a result of tacking 20-40 years to our life expectancy, just imagine how our concept of life would change if we could live for a thousand years or more.  Why would you have to stop at one career?  You could start out by, say, going to medical school.  (You wouldn't have to rush through.  You've got all the time in the world.)  You could work for a 100 years or so as a doctor or researcher.  Invest your money in the stock market. (Just think of how your money would grow if it were invested for centuries.)  When you get sick of being a doctor, you could enter your first retirment.  You could travel, or play bingo, or get a little cottage someplace quiet and just relax.  Then, when you get bored with that, go back to school.  Maybe this time around you want to study music or write that novel.  

And forget traveling as we know it.  You could _live anywhere._  You'd have plenty of time to learn the language.  Live in Paris for 100 years.  Then Japan.  Then Brazil.  Then...Mars?  

What's that you say?  After 500 years your spouse is getting on your nerves?  Well, take a break from him or her.  Separate or divorce and marry someone else.  It doesn't have to be goodbye forever.  The two of you are immortal and you're going to remain 30 years old forever.  You can always reunite in the future.  You're going to be very different people 1,000 years from now.  You'll be like newlyweds all over again.  

Yikes.  You could wind up with dozens of children and as many spouses as Elizabeth Taylor.


----------



## Tau Zero (Dec 2, 2006)

JD,

I read your post with interest as (again) your raise intelligent points. I won't pretend that i put very much thought on the social impact of such an event. 

My thought were (obviously) on the pesonal choice to live this way. Many of the comments revolve around the eventual boredom of such an existance. But i don't think that will be a problem. If you're bored, and have all the time in the world, then find something new to do. Get a new job for a few decades, do something you've always wanted for a century or so. You'd never run out of things to do because new occupation and fields of study are always opening up.

And remember, as described, this immortaliy is not invulnerability. You can kill yourself any time you want to.

And finally, just judging from these posts, most people would not accept this opportunity. So there may not be very many immortals running around after all.


----------



## Talysia (Dec 2, 2006)

If living forever meant always existing in people's memories - as a famous author, artist or something, for example - then that wouldn't be too bad, but I wouldn't actually want to physically live forever.  Whilst it would give me plenty of time to write my stories, I think I'd miss my family too much.  Having to watch everyone I know grow old whilst I stayed the same - I'd hate that.


----------



## Who's Wee Dug (Dec 3, 2006)

Paige Turner said:


> 'I'm not afraid of dying. Why should I be afraid? There's no reason for it. You've got to go sometime."
> 
> I'll bet 90% of you have heard this quote, but if somebody can name the source, I'll be very impressed.
> 
> ...


Pink Floyd!! it was on a track called The Great Gig in the Sky and it was the opening words spoken at the start of the track.The name of the album is The Dark Side of the Moon released in 1973.


----------



## SpaceShip (Dec 3, 2006)

Redhawk said:


> Very interesting topic!  Many different ways of looking at such an opportunity that's a given.  Once not exactly mentioned that occurs to me is that anyone who is a Christian, already HAS taken "the pill" since that belief system entails Everlasting Life as part of the gift.
> 
> Makes me wonder!  I'd not given it much thought in terms of, What will I do all day...after day...after day...after day.....



Well - so far as your last sentence is concerned, the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 2:9 "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered in the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love Him".

I look around at this world and think that there is just so much out there that I haven't seen or will see in this lifetime and wonder just what St Paul had in mind in the above verse.  I reckon it will be very exciting!


----------



## Redhawk (Dec 3, 2006)

SpaceShip said:


> Well - so far as your last sentence is concerned, the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 2:9 "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered in the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love Him".
> 
> I look around at this world and think that there is just so much out there that I haven't seen or will see in this lifetime and wonder just what St Paul had in mind in the above verse.  I reckon it will be very exciting!



Without sarcasm or sounding too ditsy...imagine the itinerary...ooooh...I mean...who else really KNOWS _all_ the really cool places to see and things to do?  Now...THAT'S a real trip!  No "E" tickets there! All "A's"


----------



## Faile (Dec 4, 2006)

To live forever? A question that is raised by many people and many relgions. 
There is many who believe that only those who can afford it should be allowed this sort of thing if it ever came about.
Personally I would not like to live forever...maybe a few decades more but not for an enertity.
What would happen if you suffered from an illness or diability? Would the gift or enteral life cure you of it?


----------



## lou.mor432 (Dec 4, 2006)

Faile said:


> To live forever? A question that is raised by many people and many relgions.
> There is many who believe that only those who can afford it should be allowed this sort of thing if it ever came about.
> Personally I would not like to live forever...maybe a few decades more but not for an enertity.
> What would happen if you suffered from an illness or diability? Would the gift or enteral life cure you of it?


 
I agree. You never know how you're going to end up in later life. Something awful could happen or you could end up with a dibilitating disease. I wanna die when I'm meant to die. Under a bus or in me bed, I don't care. I just don't want to live forever.


----------



## KZCat (Dec 4, 2006)

A very cool topic! MyThoughts(tm):

* As you live longer the probablity of dying in some accident some time would approch 1, i.e., you could live a long time but if you live long enough you would die.

* Only the rich could afford it -- Au contraire, a headline from the year 2020: "AIG Insurance Company Announces Longevity Plan: AIG announced today a new combination medical/insurance program. Consumers can sign up for this plan and get the new Methuselagra (the new longevity drug) free as long as they make life insurance payments, payements are expected to be very competitive. One Insurance executive was heard to say 'Imagine, 100 to 200 years of guaranteed insurance payments!'"

* Space would be a very viable option, either for the young or the old. I figure either the old will be shipped out to colonies on Mars and or the Moon. Or the young will strike out to make new lives "in the colonies".

* For a very interesting take on "long life"/"immortality" check out Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan. Immortality in that novel involves downloading minds. Its a very interesting take on that whole concept and has more logical ideas about this concept than I've seen anywhere else.

My personal goal: To die in a mountain biking accident on Mars at the age of 350.


----------



## Azathoth (Dec 4, 2006)

One other thing to consider regarding an immortality pill - those who would control access to the pill would more or less own the world.  I wonder how many people would give up everything they had for a taste of immortality...?


----------



## SpaceShip (Dec 7, 2006)

Azathoth said:


> One other thing to consider regarding an immortality pill - those who would control access to the pill would more or less own the world. I wonder how many people would give up everything they had for a taste of immortality...?


And what might happen if someone were to take a double dose?  Well, I know you wouldn't be able to live a double eternity - that's impossible.  But what would happen?


----------



## Joel007 (Dec 7, 2006)

There's a book by terry pratchett where the races have achived near immortality, but those who choose that path sacrifice the ability to have children. 
The only thing left capable of backing a currency is time, they pay each other in days. 
Its called Strata, gd book


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 7, 2006)

It is a matter of pride to me to remember things. Possibly not_ all_ the facts I come into contact with, but a good percentage. Now, after less than six decades, I notice a reduction of capacity. Perhaps not due to lack of storage capacity yet, perhaps a reorganisation would clear this stage, but how about six centuries? Six millenia? If we have space for a couple of centuries of reclamable memories, would we get stuck with doing regular backups and editing out unnescessary information? Or just dumping everything more than a hundred and fifty years unused? (Not old. Any memory you haven't accessed in that long)
So, no, I've got no desire for extinction; but none for overload, either. And I quite like being classifiable as "human"; I question whether something with several thousand years of memories would fulfill the conditions. 
I suspect that, rather than everyone going cautious and protecting their potentially endless lives, there would be a large minority who would get ever more jaded, seeking more extreme experiences, greater risks, something which stimulated enough of an adrenaline rush to inform the experiencee that he's still alive, and that these individuals, probably the most interesting portion  of the population, would die relatively young (say, a couple of centuries) while the hidebound, nothing must change, no leaving opportunities/money/living space for the newcomers, _boring_ block would live on and on (and ooooonnn), until the stastistically inevitable catastrophe renders the Earth uninhabitable.


----------



## Urien (Dec 7, 2006)

Spaceship,

I don't know what happens if you take two, probably nothing, as the first (in my mind anyway) works by ensuring steady state no decay DNA replication.

Chris, I hate to say it but the "reduction" you speak of could easily be to do with nearly six decades. If you were held at thirty the "reduction" problem might not occur at all.


----------



## Pointfinder (Dec 7, 2006)

We have ample technologies available to us now to document and store our memories "off site" on computers, in digital photos and videos, who really needs a memory?  Of course this opens the door to a wonderful dark SF storyline where the backup files somehow get destroyed and the world is populated with people who have no idea who they are.


----------



## Urien (Dec 7, 2006)

^Ohh nice idea.


----------



## Pandæmonium (Dec 7, 2006)

I wouldn't want to live forever (sorry to go off tpoic here guys and girls)

Living forever would be interesting as in that you could learn everything and anything you wanted, technically, an infinite world has limitless possibilities - If you wanted to find out how to walk to the moon and back, u could theoretically do it. 

however, living forever would be a life of solitude. A reasonable example would be Superman (i know its a little crude but...) - Sure he's portrayed as awsome etc etc - But you would see everyone you love and care about eventually wither away and ultimately pass on, and I can tell u from personal experience that isnt nice, especially very close people, im sure some of you share my experience of that feeling. So imagine an infinite number of people to share a "lifetime" with, and then imagine an infinate amount of loss. If any of you watch Star Trek (voyager mainly) - U'll recall the eppisode where that "Q" wants to commit suicide because he's tired of an infinite yet borring existance? 

Open to your own opinions, but there you go. that's mine  

Del


----------



## SpaceShip (Dec 7, 2006)

Pointfinder said:


> We have ample technologies available to us now to document and store our memories "off site" on computers, in digital photos and videos, who really needs a memory?  Of course this opens the door to a wonderful dark SF storyline where the backup files somehow get destroyed and the world is populated with people who have no idea who they are.


Or, if they had something to haggle with, they could purchase a more superior brain/memory/etc - and does it need to end there?

Roll up, roll up - heavenly bodies for sale to go with advanced memory-sticks for brains (unless it is your intention to become a blonde heavenly body with a dumb brain - alluring to some, I believe).

Swap your worn out body/brain for a newer upgraded version: Stephen Hawking's brain is on sale - a snip at US$6trillion.  That, together with the frame of Jude Law (or the hunk of your choice) at a knock down price of US$5trillion.

Please form an orderly queue here (please leave zimmers in the car park - a label will be provided with your name on it, if you can remember it, so that you can find it later - that is if you will need it after your fabulous purchase)


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 7, 2006)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> Spaceship,
> 
> I don't know what happens if you take two, probably nothing, as the first (in my mind anyway) works by ensuring steady state no decay DNA replication.
> 
> Chris, I hate to say it but the "reduction" you speak of could easily be to do with nearly six decades. If you were held at thirty the "reduction" problem might not occur at all.



Certainly my capacity may well be reduced; I've not exactly taken the best possible care of my synapses  
Still, the fact holds that our memory capacity is finite, and our capacity of organising that memory considerably more so; how ever well brain cells are regenerating (who was the author of the short story where immortality was achieved by perfect cellular regeneration, which perfectly returned brain cells to the state in which they had been before the treatment, ie without any extra memories? Sixties,I think) there is a finite quantity of potential storage, and you are trying to put an infinite quantity of disorganised information into it _and_ put the nescessary links in to be able to refind it. Mathematically improbable.
So, while unfair wear and tear might have an influence, in the long run nobody's brain's properly designed for the really long run.

Racist joke

Man goes into a transplant clinic for a brain transplant, and is showed available models
"and here we have a colledge professor, only one careful user, well run in, $150.000"
"Interesting; and this one?"
"Hardly used, the star of a soap opera, masses of free capacity $100,000- and here, our star offer, from a swiss german, $450,000 !"
"But why's that one so expensive?"
"Oh, sometimes you have to open fifteen, maybe twenty swiss germans to find one"

Easily modified for whichever nationality/sport you wish to criticise at the moment…


----------



## KZCat (Dec 8, 2006)

chrispenycate said:


> ... there is a finite quantity of potential storage, and you are trying to put an infinite quantity of disorganised information into it _and_ put the nescessary links in to be able to refind it. Mathematically improbable.
> So, while unfair wear and tear might have an influence, in the long run nobody's brain's properly designed for the really long run.
> …



Computer aided memory? Off loaded memories? Memory editing services?


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 8, 2006)

KZCat said:


> Computer aided memory? Off loaded memories? Memory editing services?


 
Briefly: These may indeed be possible and useful at some point, but I wonder about the things that are concomitant with memory. After all memories do not stand alone; they are tied to our senses and emotions; they are a complex rather than an isolated item or impulse in the brain. And, as we all know, the more complex a technology, the more room there is for error and the random element. One could never be certain of one's memories, as the tiniest fluctuations may alter them drastically. Good to think about -- and, as I said earlier, food for any sf writers who want to tackle the subject; but practically speaking ... very unlikely.


----------



## Locksmith (Dec 8, 2006)

You're right JD, there's no chance of a memory editing service, unlike the immortality pill, which is just around the corner, right.


----------



## Joel007 (Dec 8, 2006)

Hmm, there are interesting ideas about immortality. Eternal old age, for one. 
Or how about 
"I must warn you, there's a chance that I may be immortal."
"So, if i shot you in the head, you wouldn't die?"
"well, when you put it like that..."

I think the phrase "Born to die" is actually not well thought out, but it ends up being true in a roundabout way. If we have no limit on our time we have no drive or ambition (why fight our way to the top when its only a matter of time before we are supplanted?). revelation of mortality can inspire people to great deeds.


----------



## Sharukem (Dec 21, 2006)

and on another note. sure we may become eternaly old, but immortality will also have it's side effects. like being unable to remember important dates (amnesia) and others along those lines. plus it won't stop us from ROTTING TO DEATH. that is one of the main side effects of immortality.


----------



## ClintonHammond (Dec 21, 2006)

Even a very limited form of Nano-tech would be able to confir the apperance of immortality and eternal youth. (It could also put an end to what we know of as economy, which is a related subject but is also a whole different thread) And I would be all over it like a fat kid on the last Smartie!  Make the body 'immune' to the oxidation of aging and to all 'disease'.... Nothing short of catastrophic damage could stop its functions.... 

I think I'd start by sleeping for about 500-1000 years.... Ya know... really get caught up on my sleep.  Then, get busy exploring the limitless potential of our universe, starting with our own little planet.  Take a few hundred years and really get to know it.  Hopfully by then "The Living Universe Foundation" will have made some decent advances to get us off this poor, doomed, little rock and out into space where we belong.

Boring?  Oh ye of little imagination..... In this expanding universe that we know oh so little about, that we've only even seen a small fragment of, who could it ever get boring?


----------



## Parson (Dec 21, 2006)

Alan Campbell has some interesting insights (in a tangential way) in his new book Scar Night. 

The Chronicles book club is going to start discussing this book in January if anyone's interested.


----------



## sci-fi girl (Dec 22, 2006)

> In this expanding universe that we know oh so little about, that we've only even seen a small fragment of, who could it ever get boring?



Totally agree. I keep on thinking that I was born in the wrong time, too much early to be precise. *One or two extra centuries to see what Universe has to offer would be at the top of my Cristmas list.*


----------



## ClintonHammond (Dec 22, 2006)

On this whole subject, read "The Harvest" by Robert Charles Wilson


----------



## Blue Tyson (Dec 26, 2006)

Yeah.  Then you could read every SF book ever.


----------



## steve12553 (Dec 26, 2006)

This thread has several new thoughts worth addressing everytime I look through it. Someone said that a non-aging person would have trouble remembering important dates. After a long  enough period of time, would the dates really be that important? I don't remember a lot of historical dates, I just know where to look them up. I've always heard that only a small portion of the brain was being used, maybe an "immortal" can tap into that extra unused expanse of brain tissue to be able to manage a long lifetime more competently. I remember hearing 10% years ago, even if 75% of excess memory capacity were available beyond the "normal" human lifespan, wouldn't that give us competency into our fourth century or so. I guess that leaves the whole thing into maintenance and degradation. How well can these thing be improved. They would be improved, though, on a racial level (as in human racial) rather than Doctor Frankenstein making the magic corrections in his laboratory. 



Personally, I like to see this in the next 20 years or so. Otherwise I will have to start exercising and eating right.


----------



## ClintonHammond (Dec 28, 2006)

"Someone said that a non-aging person would have trouble remembering important dates"
I don't see why they would.... I had no problem remebering things when I was 25. (I don't have much trouble now, at 36 either) If I was kept at that physical and mental 'level' forever, why would I ever develop a problem remembering things?  The human brain isn't like a computers hard-drive.... You can't fill it up, unless age (or some other form of damage) has imparied your ability to make new 'memory cells')

"that leaves the whole thing into maintenance and degradation"
Hence even a middling level of nano-tech....


----------



## steve12553 (Dec 28, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "Someone said that a non-aging person would have trouble remembering important dates"
> I don't see why they would.... I had no problem remebering things when I was 25. (I don't have much trouble now, at 36 either) If I was kept at that physical and mental 'level' forever, why would I ever develop a problem remembering things? The human brain isn't like a computers hard-drive.... You can't fill it up, unless age (or some other form of damage) has imparied your ability to make new 'memory cells')
> 
> "that leaves the whole thing into maintenance and degradation"
> Hence even a middling level of nano-tech....


 
As someone nearly 20 years older yet, I see a change that you haven't yet. My mind is definitely more developed. I understand more. I have more background to compare things to. On the other hand, I have so many more memories to look through. I don't forget everything but I tend to let go less important things as more important things show up. Think of it as the software that manages the memories has limits. Everything is probably still in there but like a fragmented harddrive, some things are harder to find. There seems to be a lot of limits to immortality.


----------



## Specfiction (Jan 2, 2007)

Immortality--there are some topics that are hard to discuss, not because they're not good topics, but because whatever can be said about them does not do them justice. It's a matter of perspective. We, as human beings, on this small blue marble have very little perspective. I have never met anyone who has ever thought of anything that they have not experienced in some form or other. I have never read anything that I’ve ever considered truly outside human experience. We haven't been around in any effective way for very long, we're not that smart, we're ripe with subjective emotions that continually distort our judgment, and we've seen almost nothing at all of the universe around us that we so arrogantly dismiss in favor of childish stories that we constantly make up and try to pass off as deep insight, or worst yet, truth. And before you start hating me for saying these things, I count myself as one of the clueless.

Immortality?--I have no idea.


----------



## Nikitta (Jan 3, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "Someone said that a non-aging person would have trouble remembering important dates"
> I don't see why they would.... I had no problem remebering things when I was 25. (I don't have much trouble now, at 36 either) If I was kept at that physical and mental 'level' forever, why would I ever develop a problem remembering things? The human brain isn't like a computers hard-drive.... You can't fill it up, unless age (or some other form of damage) has imparied your ability to make new 'memory cells')


 
You'd have more things to remember, which would make it harder to remember them. I mean - no matter how big a harddrive you have on your computer, more information stored means it takes more time to find the information you need, unless you manage to invent a search engine for the mind. That would make you rich and famous. I'm "only" 32 and I could really use one!


----------



## Alurny (Jan 3, 2007)

Nikitta said:


> You'd have more things to remember, which would make it harder to remember them. I mean - no matter how big a harddrive you have on your computer, more information stored means it takes more time to find the information you need, unless you manage to invent a search engine for the mind. That would make you rich and famous. I'm "only" 32 and I could really use one!



I need one now and I'm 19!

Living forever would be great and horrible at the same time. For instance you would see every generation of your family die but then you would see how your family line continued.

Also I could read as slow as I wanted and still know that I literally had all the time in the world! hehe.


----------



## AHJ87 (Jan 4, 2007)

Here's the thing people...
We _*are*_ already immortal beings! Don't be seduced by the organized religions and their quest to enslave the minds.

Our bodies are merely garments that we change every once in a while. We were here - we are here - and we'll always be.

Earth is just an evolved planet that might decay after a couple of billions of years. But so what? We'll simply move on to another planet that'll evolve into a new Earth and start all over.
I said this once in another thread, and I'll say it again: the Universe is limitless.

The relgious scriptures that depict a so-called "Judgement Day" have all been misunderstood and taken literally. The learned knows that the writings hold parables - metaphors - symbolism that only the wise can grasp.

Our minds are boundless, so basically we are boundless. It's as simple as that.

_"And God said: Let us make man in *our image*, in *our likeness*, and let them *rule* over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." - *Genesis 1:26*_


----------



## Parson (Jan 4, 2007)

> The learned knows that the writings hold parables - metaphors - symbolism that only the wise can grasp.


 
It's always good to have a militant Gnostic in the circle.


----------



## AHJ87 (Jan 4, 2007)

> It's always good to have a militant Gnostic in the circle.


 
LOL! Yup - it sure is!

But I'm serious. Yes, I know to each his/her own opinion, but look at what's happening to a world where people are taking everything at face value.


----------



## Tau Zero (Jan 5, 2007)

AHJ87 said:


> Here's the thing people...
> We _*are*_ already immortal beings!


 
Uhh, OK, i think we were talking about the kind of immortality where one doesn't die. All the dead people i've come across seemed to stay that way.


----------



## Azathoth (Jan 5, 2007)

> All the dead people i've come across seemed to stay that way.


  Apparently you haven't met zombie Lincoln yet.


----------



## AHJ87 (Jan 5, 2007)

> Uhh, OK, i think we were talking about the kind of immortality where one doesn't die. All the dead people i've come across seemed to stay that way.


 
Oh well... that's what you think. And it's probably what many others think as well.

As for me, I'm sticking to my opinion no matter how absurd it may sound: we're immortal the way we are.


----------



## Tau Zero (Jan 5, 2007)

Well, it's a bit more than an opinion. All the people who have ever died are still dead.  Try going for a walk with one of them.

If i understand you correctly, you're saying all the dead people in world are still alive?  Sorry, but i don't understand how a dead person can be called immortal (which, in this thread, means "doesn't die").


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 5, 2007)

Yes... it might help to define terms before things get a bit too muddled; that way differing viewpoints can be debated, rather than ending up with mass confusion....


----------



## Urien (Jan 5, 2007)

Immortality as originally intended in this thread was the kind of immortality that preseved you the way you are now. Take a little green pill that means you never age. You would still be vulnerable to dread disease and accident.

The question afterwards was would you take it?


----------



## AHJ87 (Jan 5, 2007)

Okay, I'm sorry for getting you confused. You're right, I should've explained my point, hehe.

You see, I personally believe in metempsychosis - the transmigration of the soul. I really don't believe that the eventual decay of my body will end my existence for ever. I will simply be born in another shell, in some other time - maybe be in another planet, in a far-away galaxy. And the cycle of life keeps going. 
It's basically a form of spiritual evolution. 

But since this thread is dedicated to the mundane sense of "death", then no, I don't think I'd want to stick around with this shell for ever.


----------



## Joel007 (Jan 5, 2007)

If you can't remember where you came from how do you know you're on your way up the chain and not down?  

Bodies age, and eventually we'd kill ourselves with the silly vices and risktaking that seem natural to our (apparently suicidal) bodies. If there was a way to renew the body whilst keeping the mind intact, we'd be onto a good thing. It could theoretically be possible, after all, bodies are just tissue that we command. The brain, however, is currently far beyond our capability of understanding, let alone replacing. 
We'd have to remove all the toxins from our styles of living to pull it off!


----------



## AHJ87 (Jan 5, 2007)

> The brain, however, is currently far beyond our capability of understanding, let alone replacing.


 
Don't you mean the human _mind_ is far beyond our capbility of understanding?


----------



## Joel007 (Jan 5, 2007)

The brain is too complex to understand, if it was simple enough to understand we'd be too stupid to understand it. The mind functions through the brain. I'm talking a brain in operation here, not a random lump of grey matter.


----------



## AHJ87 (Jan 5, 2007)

Of course, you must know that both the brain and the mind are separate entities. They may look entwined, but in reality, they're not.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 5, 2007)

AHJ87: Metempsychosis, eh? Always been rather fond of that word... Rather thought you meant that sort of thing, but thank you for clarifying. Yes, I'd understood that the meaning (in this thread) had been mundane (or "bodily") immortality....

As for "the mind and brain being separate entities" and "[t]hey may look entwined, but in reality, they're not" -- there, I'd say, you're getting into a very thorny (but fascinating) other argument. All the evidence (as opposed to speculation) that I've seen or heard of, so far indicates that mind is very much a function of the brain; it's that complex structure of neural connections that we develop from the first appearance of the notochord onward; and this certainly seems to be backed by the more recent experiments involving those who were terminally ill (who agreed to have such tests run), which traces pretty well the slow reverse or shutting down of various brain functions as death approaches, with the devolvement of more and more complex processes (and consequent mental activities). I'd say that's got much more likelihood of being what "reality" is (though that word has become increasingly slippery as the significance we assign it alters over time).

However, if you'd like to throw your point up for discussion, it might be better to start a separate thread, rather than getting this one any farther off topic....


----------



## AHJ87 (Jan 5, 2007)

I'm really sorry for driving the topic off track. I never meant for it to go this far, but... oh well. Lol!

Yeah, maybe I'll start a new thread. We can throw tantrums there!

What do ya say?

*Grin*


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 5, 2007)

AHJ87 said:


> I'm really sorry for driving the topic off track. I never meant for it to go this far, but... oh well. Lol!
> 
> Yeah, maybe I'll start a new thread. We can throw tantrums there!
> 
> ...


 
Personally... I say "go for it!"  (Well, as long as the tantrums are within reason.....)


----------



## Whitestar (Jan 11, 2007)

The idea of immortality may sound appealing to some, but it could be a nightmare for others. One of the benefits of living the life of an immortal is gaining numerous experiences in life. We would become wise beyond our years and take the time to slow down our fast-pace lives, and really enjoy the small things in life. We could have more time to study courses at the university and have the opportunity to visit the entire world at our leisure. However, there are disadvantages to being immortal as well such as becoming lazy, decadent, selfish, and bored. Plus, if everyone on the planet became immortal and continued to procreate, we would have an outrageously serious overpopulation issue to deal with and we already have that problem today! In order for this to work, only a selected few should be chosen to be immortal, that is, if these particular individuals wished to. And this will keep the population in check too. I think what will eventually happen is people in the future will live several centuries, possibly ranging from 300 to 700 years old. For this work, we would have to do one of two things: either drastically reduce our procreation, or venture out into space and populate other planets and moons. I address this in my developing science fiction story and explore the implications of a society that has a lifespan consisting of many centuries.


----------



## weaveworld (Jan 12, 2007)

No, not I, I get bored very easily, attention span of a goldfish, etc, plus knowing my luck my pc would break, which would lead to me not being to upload my creative zen vision m, or to charge it, I would then be music free and living forever, nope, I am happy to go when my time comes. 

Here's to your next life everyone...


----------



## Leonardo (Jan 12, 2007)

I think immortality is an impossibility, but I'd gladly live a thousand years. When life extension becomes an option (and I believe it should happen within my lifetime), I'll definitely go for it.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 12, 2007)

AHJ87 said:


> I'm really sorry for driving the topic off track. I never meant for it to go this far, but... oh well. Lol!
> 
> Yeah, maybe I'll start a new thread. We can throw tantrums there!
> 
> ...



Did this new thread ever get started? Because I think the subject is fascinating.


----------



## Dr.Jackson (Jan 14, 2007)

Just discovered this thread! How did it take me so long?!

I think that although immortality is a tempting idea from an academic point of view, from a psychological point of view it would be a nightmare.
Yes, you would be able to go anywhere and do anything without fear of time. You could learn all there is to be learned, see all there is to see, and do all there is to do. It would be brilliant and never ending so long as nothing else got in the way.
Unfortunately, human nature would be the one thing that did get in the way. The need for our own space would drive us out to the stars, fragmenting our culture, rather than integrating to mutual benefit.
There would, of course, be people who would not choose to live forever, and people that would feel pressured into taking that option. For those that chose immortality, there would be an elitist sensibility amongst some. The 'mortals' would be regarded as inferior in some regards.
Of course, relationships between the mortals and immortals would be virtually impossible due to a degree of emotional attachment. Could you watch someone you were friends with or loved grow old and die, whilst you stayed youthful? This was brought up in Highlander and shows that even after hundreds of years of this pattern, it doesn't get any easier.

So, if immortality was a choice, you would end up with a galaxy full of fragmented, tormented societies that would rather they hadn't chosen a tormented existence.


----------



## Parson (Jan 15, 2007)

Dr.Jackson said:


> So, if immortality was a choice, you would end up with a galaxy full of fragmented, tormented societies that would rather they hadn't chosen a tormented existence.


 
As if that isn't what we have now.


----------



## Urien (Jan 23, 2007)

_"So, if immortality was a choice, you would end up with a galaxy full of fragmented, tormented societies that would rather they hadn't chosen a tormented existence." Dr Jackson_

_It's the use of the word "would" that gets me here. How could you possibly know?_


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 23, 2007)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> _"So, if immortality was a choice, you would end up with a galaxy full of fragmented, tormented societies that would rather they hadn't chosen a tormented existence." Dr Jackson_
> 
> _It's the use of the word "would" that gets me here. How could you possibly know?_


 
You may have a point there, AVS... I think "would most likely" may be more accurate, and I'd base that on the evidence that, even with radical changes in society, and in longevity, _basic human nature_ doesn't change much, and hasn't for the past 5000 years or more; we still carry around one heck of a lot of our progenitor's inherited instincts, and those tend to override our rationality at the drop of a hat....


----------



## K. Riehl (Jan 23, 2007)

My take is that along with immortality would come medical and science advances. This would allow us to manipulate brain function(memory,suppress the emotions or unwanted primeval drives). It would allow us to modify our bodies. Wouldn't immortality combined with science lead to virtual godhood?
Read the _Boat of a Million Years - _by Poul Anderson. It's a book that follows immortals from the time of Christ to our present time and on into the future.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 24, 2007)

I'm afraid that I find the idea of repressing our most basic instincts (which is a good part of what makes us so bellicose) rather untenable, for several reasons. Our brains evolved this way over a very long period of time, and most of the more ancient mechanisms have a survival potential necessary to the brain's basic functioning and development. To interfere with that is to stunt proper development at various stages, leading to serious imbalances. More, perhaps, than any other field of medicine, this is the one that deals with the most delicate aspects of biochemistry and genetics, and also with those the most finely calibrated and most easily distorted or damaged. This being the case, I rather doubt we'd see such advances for a very, very long time; and in the meantime the road toward such advances is likely to be so packed with botches that there's going to have to be an overriding concern _obvious to the majority of people with any voice, politically speaking_, for the necessary research and experimentation to be continued; otherwise, the backlash (as it will inevitably have a high human cost) is likely to be abrupt and permanent. No, I'm afraid we human beings are a damned long way from being capable of even virtual godhood.

There is also the other side of the coin: such artificial alterations in our most basic mental/emotional life would, quite literally, mean we would no longer be recognizably human, but something other. I'm afraid that there aren't that many who would be willing to take that chance on losing the things we hold most dear, the things that do make us uniquely us, in order to achieve a possible outcome of the type you describe -- I doubt the majority, when really faced with such a choice (rather than a speculation on such) would even do so if it were a certainty, let alone anything less. And would you really want to suppress the emotions? Remember, no emotion exists in vacuo; they are all so intertwined as to compose such a complex knot as would make the Gordian example appear as a 5-year-old child's puzzle in comparison. Such things as love/hate/affection/aesthetic appreciation/anger/joy/hope/dreams/etc. are all so closely related, and so inextricably intertwined, that even the tiniest alteration in one is quite likely to affect or diminish them all; and the outcome of that is much more likely to have disastrous effects than otherwise (the chances of the outcome being beneficial being in the statistical minority). It is likely to increase the incidence of neuroses and psychoses, of sociopaths, etc., because the brain (and its product, the mind) is not only the most delicate aspect of the human organism, but also the most individual organically and electrobiochemically (as is shown by the incidence of harmful effects of various psychotropic pharmaceuticals on various portions of the populace -- look at the varied effects of the same antidepressants on even genetically-close relatives, for example); we would be dealing with statistical averages, rather than individual minds, or else we would have an ever-proliferating number of techniques and treatments tailor-made for each individual, which would simply become too costly to support, and too fraught with dangers should the tailoring be off by even the tiniest scintilla. And that's not even addressing the effect of such altering the emotional makeup on family life and children, or even child-rearing (if it were only done for the adults, so that the children's brains could mature and develop naturally; as delicate as the adult brain is, the developing brain of a child is a billionfold more complex, because any alteration of circumstances exterior or interior can so alter the neural pathways being created at any point).

This is something we may one day achieve, but it is likely to be very, very far in the future because of the nature of the thing. More than anything else, the interdependence of brain function and mental/emotional life, personality, etc., approach the uncertainty limit (not that they work in quite the same way, or should be seen as similar in physical properties, but rather that the uniqueness of each brain is similar in difficulty in regard to certainty of effect of any action on its functioning where the complex known as personality is concerned), and this raises the risk factors astronomically. It is one thing to medicate those who have obvious mental/emotional problems that make it difficult for them to function daily; it is quite another thing to take a "normally" healthy brain and alter its functioning for such an uncertain and nebulous posited future result.

Also... what are we, as individuals, if not our memories, hopes, dreams, aspirations, emotions? Pure intellect is a very cold thing; pleasurable only because it is tied in with our thalamus and reinforced by those brain chemicals which give us a sense of well-being and pleasure when it is being exercised in its purest (achievable) form. Suppression of memories is, again, an extremely delicate thing. Certainly, we nearly all have some memories we'd prefer to eliminate ... but eliminating that particular portion of a neural web without affecting those we wouldn't wish to disturb or alter is quite another. The "primeval drives" are also what drive us to achieve when circumstances around us seem overwhelming; those drives that push us toward aggression are what keep us afloat in such situations. Let's face it, the complexities of the brain-functions that produce the mind are such that we are more likely to understand the deepest complexities of the exterior universe itself long before we sort all that lot; certainly before we would be anywhere near having enough information to achieve the delicacy of touch necessary for what your post proposes.


----------



## Specfiction (Jan 24, 2007)

> There is also the other side of the coin: such artificial alterations in our most basic mental/emotional life would, quite literally, mean we would no longer be recognizably human, but something other. I'm afraid that there aren't that many who would be willing to take that chance on losing the things we hold most dear, the things that do make us uniquely us, in order to achieve a possible outcome of the type you describe...



This is an interesting comment and is the subject of the novel I've written. It may just be that sentience, as a device of natural evolution, allows a species to take the "next step," a step that environmental evolution can not take since it can never "wipe" the slate clean. And, as the old saying goes, the "success" of such a step depends very heavily on the details of how it's implemented and the anticipation of the reaction of those that "like it the way it is."


----------



## Parson (Jan 24, 2007)

Specfiction said:


> It may just be that sentience, as a device of natural evolution, allows a species to take the "next step," a step that environmental evolution can not take since it can never "wipe" the slate clean.


 
You do realize that you've just crossed the boundry from science into religion? "Next step" assumes a pattern of development rather than random chance. It has the idea that there is something better or greater that needs to be accomplished to fulfill a kind of destiny.


----------



## paul l (Jan 25, 2007)

would anyone seriously want to live forever with the same politicians running the country not me. beam me up scotty


----------



## Specfiction (Jan 25, 2007)

Parson said:


> You do realize that you've just crossed the boundry from science into religion? "Next step" assumes a pattern of development rather than random chance. It has the idea that there is something better or greater that needs to be accomplished to fulfill a kind of destiny.



Interpretation is in the eye of the interpreter. I try not to anthropomorphize reality. Destiny, in the human sense, may in reality, have no objective meaning. What was destiny before there were people on Earth (which was about 99.9% of the time) or after we are gone? No, "next step" refers to the fact that the universe is in "motion." The next step could be no step for us--don't know. Since we have no real understanding of "time" or how the objective world works, destiny, to me, has no meaning. Motion, however, does have meaning--it means things change in "time."

Although in the "subjective sense," I agree with you. We can have a vision for ourselves. And we can use the tools that we have, i.e. our minds, to try to accomplish those goals. But this has nothing more to do than with a particular species, on a little planet, trying to "fulfill" a subjective vision.


----------



## Zandramas (Jan 25, 2007)

Burrow down into the earth.  Capture the energy of the inner core and use it to launch an entire civilization to the stars!


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 25, 2007)

Parson said:


> You do realize that you've just crossed the boundry from science into religion? "Next step" assumes a pattern of development rather than random chance. It has the idea that there is something better or greater that needs to be accomplished to fulfill a kind of destiny.


 
Parson: If that "next step" comes from an outside source, a teleology that involves a "higher being", then that would be correct, I suppose. But if it comes from within, that isn't the case (or at least, not necessarily; human beings can create a religion around any idea, and in that sense, it could become such). There we are simply dealing with human self-determination, which is an entirely different thing, and localized rather than cosmic in scope. And even on that plane, it's limited; it isn't genuine free choice, but selection from limited (even if numerically great) options. And the "next step" may be what we assume to be better or greater, but that would be from our limited perspective, and may not be beneficial in any way at all.


----------



## Kelvin Zero (Jan 27, 2007)

I think we were horribly traumatised as a race when we evolved enough intellect to realise we would die despite all our instincts to stay alive.

Of course we evolved complicated philosophies to make the world fair again.
The problem is that once you have convinced yourself death is good, of course immortality is bad.

It is ironic that these philosophies that tell us it is good to die can themselves be viewed as living organisims, some of which have lived for thousands of years, all of which claim the right for themselves to live forever or at least to the end of the world.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 27, 2007)

Kelvin Zero said:


> The problem is that once you have convinced yourself death is good, of course immortality is bad.
> 
> It is ironic that these philosophies that tell us it is good to die can themselves be viewed as living organisims, some of which have lived for thousands of years, all of which claim the right for themselves to live forever or at least to the end of the world.


 
Problem is, when I began looking at this idea, I wasn't against the idea of immortality -- far from it. But I began doing some serious thought about the subject, both as a mental exercise and for a series of stories I was working on. The more I looked into the repercussions, the less appealing immortality became. And the more I've learned about the complexities of human psychology, emotions, interactions, etc., the more the evidence points to it being a very bad idea ... at least, until we evolve into something that is essentially no longer human as we've ever known it. But the probability of that is extremely slim (possible, but probable? no) for more reasons than can be gone into in anything less than a rather sizable tome. And the evolution would have to be something that rewrites our most basic brain structure -- as far as I know, no evolution in any species has really done that. It becomes more complex, but it does _not _go back and restructure the most basic parts of the brain, and that is what would be necessary to eliminate the most difficult things where a viable immortality would be concerned.

It's not a preference; it's realistic observation of who and what human beings are, and what would be required for immortality to work. The two simply don't mix.

And, lest this be chalked up to simply my individual experience -- on your earlier statement: While it's an interesting view I don't think it quite matches up with the evidence. I recommend looking into the anthropological (as well as historical) evidence for how concepts of death and its part in life evolved over time. Trauma tends to be something requiring a sense of a disjuncture; this in turn implies a "norm" where the traumatizing aspect does not exist. But as we evolved, we were experiencing death all around us the entire time. It was the norm for us as a _species_, but not as _individuals_. _That_ is where the trauma comes in: on the individual level, not the species level. And not understanding death, this cessation of normal action, puzzles and hurts and frightens (once a certain level of reasoning is reached), as one misses one's loved ones, and can also make the analogy that if they are no longer moving or breathing, laughing, eating, having sex, etc., then the same thing may happen to "me". Hence the mystery. The evolving of the various myths of immortality that we are familiar with came a lot later, as a set of responses to this reaction of fear on an individual and also collective (not species) level. (This is not to say that earlier ideas of immortality did not exist, but they were certainly refined and replaced by other models of the concept. It is these with which we are generally familiar.)


----------



## Kelvin Zero (Jan 28, 2007)

The simplest form of immortality might be to connect two minds cybernetically, eg mother and unborn daughter with enough bandwidth that they act with such coordination that they do not consider themselves different people, just as each hemisphere of our brain does not consider itself a different person. The mother could 'teleoperate' through the daughter at first, but her skills would gradually be re-cached on the daughter's side. Meanwhile, the mother's braincells could slowly be destroyed wherever unused to force the combined intelligence to rely more and more on the daughter's side. This happens all the time anyway. It is why we have to keep practicing old skills.

I expect from now on in, we will be changing too fast to worry about genetic evolution.


----------



## Parson (Jan 28, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Parson: If that "next step" comes from an outside source, a teleology that involves a "higher being", then that would be correct, I suppose. But if it comes from within, that isn't the case (or at least, not necessarily; human beings can create a religion around any idea, and in that sense, it could become such). There we are simply dealing with human self-determination, which is an entirely different thing, and localized rather than cosmic in scope. And even on that plane, it's limited; it isn't genuine free choice, but selection from limited (even if numerically great) options. And the "next step" may be what we assume to be better or greater, but that would be from our limited perspective, and may not be beneficial in any way at all.


 
After reading your post about 5 times, I think I understand what you are saying.  I believe the difference in our thinking comes in our understanding of "next step." To me "next step" implies directionality and intentionality. A step in a direction whether for better or worse is as you say not clear from our limited perspective. For me if we are simply talking about natural selection, you would say something like the next era or epoch or the like. If we have the forces of nature moving with directionality and intentionality than I maintain we have entered into the domain of an intelligence so much superior to ours that it would certainly have to be considered at least a demiurge. If not truly God.


----------



## Specfiction (Jan 29, 2007)

> To me "next step" implies directionality and intentionality.



The Presumption of Purpose. Directionality and intentionality are a matter of perception. These are subjective qualities that may have no meaning in objective reality. Before there were people to "perceive" the movement of events on Earth, there was the evolution of inanimate matter into an organization that we now call life--there are reasons for this. For a brief time there will be the "presumption" of purpose by some life forms on Earth, of which people are the highest order. And when we are gone, physical reality will continue to move (as long as there is available energy or less than maximal entropy) onto the "next step" or epoch or whatever one chooses to call it. 

The point I'm trying to make here is that one can impose whatever narrative onto the motion of nature one chooses. The most likely correct narrative (the one that's the least wrong) is the one that incorporates the fewest assumptions.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 29, 2007)

Looking up something on a literary reference concerning the word "threnody", I came across the following:



> As our life is very short, so it is very miserable; and therefore it is well that it is short. God, in pity to mankind, lest his burden should be insupportable and his nature an intolerable load, hath reduced our state of misery to an abbreviature; and the greater our misery is, the less while it is like to last; the sorrows of a man's spirit being like ponderous weights, which by the greatness of their burden make a swifter motion, and descend into the grave to rest and ease our wearied limbs; for then only we shall sleep quietly, when those fetters are knocked off, which not only bound our souls in prison, but also ate the flesh till the very bones opened the secret garments of their cartilages, discovering their nakedness and sorrow.
> 
> -- From _Rules and Exercises of Holy Dying,_ by Jeremy Taylor (1651)


----------



## Parson (Jan 29, 2007)

Specfiction said:


> The point I'm trying to make here is that one can impose whatever narrative onto the motion of nature one chooses. The most likely correct narrative (the one that's the least wrong) is the one that incorporates the fewest assumptions.


 
I agree. But I maintain that in a human context the idea of "taking a step" implies directionality and intentionality, which can only arise from an outside agency exerting "force" onto the template. Therefore to speak about evolution taking the next step is to slide into the arena of theology.



We've probably highjacked this thread more than it deserves. This has little to nothing to do with "Who wants to live forever."


----------



## Specfiction (Jan 29, 2007)

And in a human context, subjectively, I agree, next step implies purpose. That is because that is how we're built. We are purposeful beings.




> We've probably highjacked this thread more than it deserves. This has little to nothing to do with "Who wants to live forever."



I know. But judging from the response, this conversation was of interest. 

BTW, for those interested, and to be more on topic, the best paper (the only real paper) I've ever read on Immortality was a lecture in The Annals of Modern Physics by Freeman Dyson at Princeton entitled "Can there be Eternal Life in a Universe which Finite Energy. It was about 80 pages of interesting calculations and came out in 1985, I think.


----------



## Specfiction (Jan 29, 2007)

> As our life is very short, so it is very miserable...



Corallary: "Life is short, but long enough to get what's coming to you..."


----------



## speedingslug (Jan 29, 2007)

Harpo said:


> Exploring the galaxies would be good, and immortality would provide the time to do so.  How about giving the immortality pill only to those who set out on such a journey?
> I agree though that earthbound immortality would not be a good thing.



A fine thought but space travel would be boring unless they inventend a very fast form of travel. More like you would spend 100's of years stuck on a spaceship bored to tears.

No pill for me, there may be adverture on the other side.


----------



## The Wanderer (Feb 13, 2007)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> Let's say in the near future science comes up with a simple method to ensure immortality in humans; barring disease and accident we could live forever.
> 
> What would the implications be, would you want to be immortal, could you stand it, how might life on Earth change?
> 
> ...




I believe it's immoral due to that fact that the rich would benefit and the poor underclass would be the suppliers of spare parts to keep the rich alive until their inevitable tiring and suicide

having said that there would possibly be less fear of dying than when you be at a 20th/21th Century

I think I'm more scared of dying than Louis Wu, perhaps


----------



## Specfiction (Feb 13, 2007)

In terms of real life extension--things that in the near future (~50 years) could actually prolong life and health; Stem Cells could completely revamp medical science and technology. It may be that when we master the potential of Stem Cells, many of the treatments that we have today will seem as antiquated as "bleeding" someone of evil spirits.


----------



## houdinination (Feb 13, 2007)

I'd like to live "forever", just for the reason to be able to look back see what happened. What drags me down though is that it will take "forever" to get there!  

Can't we kind of... fast forward a bit when it gets a little boring?


----------



## malfunkshun (Feb 27, 2007)

I would take the immortality pill, but I wouldn't want to live forever.  My comfort would be that eventually I would die accidentally.  I mean, the odds are for it.


----------



## James Carmack (Mar 2, 2007)

It would be interesting if there was a poll to concisely view the breakdown of sentiments here.

As for me, if we're talking about an eternal corporeal existence, a permanent extension of our lives as is, then I must answer with a vehement no, never.

It reminds me of a documentary speculating on future advancements.  Among them was the total elimination of sleep, the creation of a true 24-hour world.  Next to immortality, it's one of the more abominable things I've heard of.  I can bear each day because I'm unconscious for about one out of every three hours.  It sounds good on paper, but people would eventually go stark raving mad.  We're compelled to make our waking hours count because they're limited.

On the same token, life is precious because it's short.  I would almost be willing to follow into immortality just to watch the ones who embrace it so eagerly, so that the moment they break, I'll be there to tell them, "I warned you, but you didn't listen."

Ecclesiastes is a good study of the limits of our mortal existence.  For the atheists and agnostics out there, you can ignore the Teacher's solution, but pay close attention to the problem.  "Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas."


----------



## alicebandassassin (Mar 2, 2007)

Good lord would that mean i would be married for ever and ever and i would be at the beck and call off children forever to good lord what an horrable thought i think i will skip that one!


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 2, 2007)

Hey, ABA! Good to see you again!


----------



## magnets (Mar 18, 2007)

The stories I've read indicate a projected lifespan of 18,000 to 25,000 years and the cause of death would be - accident.

However, I would expect that lots of folks would get into space travel because they would have the time and eventually get lucky and have the money.  And, with space travel my guess is that the accident rate would become higher over time.  Waking up groggy on Mars would not be the same as waking up on Earth with your face down in the gutter outside the local bar.

We need to be mining the Kuiper belt and building a bigger Mars so that it has more gravity and can build a bigger atmosphere.  Until you can walk outside and play a game of softball - it's not a planet worth calling home.

magnets,


----------

