Suppose Science Made Immortality Into A Reality?

[Immortality]

Hello everyone, pleasure to meet you I’m Immortality and you will see why in a moment. I was going to mention this in another thread but because its against the rules, I could not.

So, I am writing a rather large Immortality FAQ ( technically it’s a Pro-Immortality FAQ), but I’m still working on the name of the FAQ, for now it’s just Untitled FAQ.

There are many people here against immortality and pose great questions , ideas, comments, etc. which I can answer, because well your wrong and I have read a lot about both immortality and anti-immortality, reading the anti-immortality stuff made me cringe every time I read a new book on anti-immortality , because your wrong on so many levels. You will see why when I’m finally done with my FREE UNIVERSITY INTERNET FAQ. If you want to know why you are wrong Dr. Aubrey de Greys Book ‘Ending Aging’ book is a good start.

Anyway this is a certifiable University of Connecticut FAQ ( hey, don’t knock us we are considered a public ivy and it’s not easy here ) . Before I can post it on the internet I think I need the deans permission, but I’m sure he will grant it ok.

So, I need your help, you have posted much against immortality, but I need way more information then that, tell me more why you are anti-immortality. Please give me as many reasons why you are against immortality. That’s all I need, the more reasons your against immortality, the better my free internet university FAQ will be. Thanks for your help. None of your usernames will be used in the FAQ, unless you would like to be included in the FAQ. Only your reasons why you hate, dislike or your concerns and thoughts, etc. on why you are against immortality will be addressed . In this case in the form of a question, and I will answer it. So you will be completely anonymous.

Thanks for doing this. Bring on your reasons, questions and concerns , thoughts, or whatever on why you are not for immortality, be as brutal as you can , got it. Thanks so much. This is going to be a really great FAQ ( well, even if I’m completely logical , which I will be , if your deep down against immortality for whatever reason none of my FAQ is going to change your mind, because you are stuck in mortality thinking , you got a problem, it’s the the pro-aging trance. Still I hope you love the FAQ when it goes live on the internet) because of your help ,so I thank you so much for this.

Bring it on...

 

[BAYLOR]

Hello everyone, pleasure to meet you I’m Immortality and you will see why in a moment. I was going to mention this in another thread but because its against the rules, I could not.

So, I am writing a rather large Immortality FAQ ( technically it’s a Pro-Immortality FAQ, but I’m still working on the name of the FAQ, for now it’s just Untitled FAQ.

There are many people here against immortality and pose great questions which I can answer, because well your wrong and I have read a lot about both immortality and anti-immortality, reading the anti-immortality stuff made me cringe and want to vomit every time I read i new book on anti-immortality , because your wrong on so many things. You will see why when I’m finally done with my FREE INTERNET FAQ. If you want to know why you are wrong Dr. Aubrey de Greys Book ‘Ending Aging’ book.

Anyway this is a certifiable University if Connecticut FAQ ( hey, don’t knock us we are considered a public ivy and it’s not easy here ) . Before I can post it on the internet I think I need the deans permission, but I’m sure he will grant it ok.

But I need your help, you have posted much against immortality, but I need way more information, tell me more why you are anti-immortality. Please give me as many reasons why you are against immortality. That’s all I need the more reasons your against immortality, the better my free internet university FAQ will be. Thanks for your help. None of your usernames will be used in the FAQ, unless you would like to be included in the FAQ. Only your reasons why you hate or dislike immortality will be addressed in the form of a question, and I will answer it. So you will be completely anonymous.

Thanks for doing this. Bring in your reasons why you dislike or hate immortality please. Thanks so much.

The Twilight Zone Long Live Mr Jamison written by Charles Beaumont highlights why Immortally wouldn't be such a desirable thing. The main character, Mr Jamison who was 3000 years old was afraid to die and sought out an alchemist who was able to grant him Immortality . Unfortunately , he outlived family and friends and realized that living forever wasn't such a good thing after all Long unending ing life had made him weary to the point here he wanted to die. Jamison figured out rather late, that only death gives any kind meaning or purpose to life.

Unending life in this world would eventually become hell on earth.

 

[AllanR]

Unending life in this world would eventually become hell on earth.

Sometimes I think that is just sour grapes....if I can't have it it must be bad!

 

[Montero]

There are many people here against immortality and pose great questions , ideas, comments, etc. which I can answer, because well your wrong and I have read a lot about both immortality and anti-immortality, reading the anti-immortality stuff made me cringe every time I read a new book on anti-immortality , because your wrong on so many levels. You will see why when I’m finally done with my FREE UNIVERSITY INTERNET FAQ. If you want to know why you are wrong Dr. Aubrey de Greys Book ‘Ending Aging’ book is a good start.

Anyway this is a certifiable University of Connecticut FAQ ( hey, don’t knock us we are considered a public ivy and it’s not easy here ) . Before I can post it on the internet I think I need the deans permission, but I’m sure he will grant it ok.

So, I need your help, you have posted much against immortality, but I need way more information then that, tell me more why you are anti-immortality. Please give me as many reasons why you are against immortality. That’s all I need, the more reasons your against immortality, the better my free internet university FAQ will be. Thanks for your help. None of your usernames will be used in the FAQ, unless you would like to be included in the FAQ. Only your reasons why you hate, dislike or your concerns and thoughts, etc. on why you are against immortality will be addressed . In this case in the form of a question, and I will answer it. So you will be completely anonymous.

Thanks for doing this. Bring on your reasons, questions and concerns , thoughts, or whatever on why you are not for immortality, be as brutal as you can , got it. Thanks so much. This is going to be a really great FAQ ( well, even if I’m completely logical , which I will be , if your deep down against immortality for whatever reason none of my FAQ is going to change your mind, because you are stuck in mortality thinking , you got a problem, it’s the the pro-aging trance. Still I hope you love the FAQ when it goes live on the internet) because of your help ,so I thank you so much for this.

Bring it on...

Hmm. The "you're wrong" bit is not exactly conducive to debate. You do then invite people to give their reasons for being against immortality but it does have the sound of "hey give me material for my blog so I can use it to show how wrong you are".

Just wanted to highlight I am not entirely comfortable with how you've phrased what you've said - we love a well reasoned, supported by proven data debate on here and leading in with "you're wrong" is not exactly friendly. Maybe you are just being provocative to get attention but it does come across as not entirely open to reasoned debate.

 

[Elckerlyc]

Evolution exists by the lucky circumstance that organisms breed and then die. We would not exist without evolution. And evolution has not evolved into creatures that lives forever. (Well OK, except for the Turriopsis dohrnii. But I refuse to be a jellyfish.) Nor will it ever, because even evolution itself is aiming for survival.
If we lived in a perfect world, without conflicts, war, crime, jealousy, greed, and your everyday *sshole around the corner, than yes perhaps immortality might be seen as something desirable, though it would become a challenge to not being bored after 10,385 years of perfect weather in a perfect setting with awfully, perfectly nice people all around you. You will start kicking ass. And be expelled from paradise.

Now, if however you do believe in creation, or a evolution ruled by divine interference, then we should ask ourselves why death was made part of this design. I can't claim to know the answer to that, but am sure it was included by design. And to be honest, I cannot imagine how life and this world would have evolved with the succession of many, many generations. Can't eleaborate more about this without crossing the border into forbidden territory.

Do I wish to live forever? No.
Do I wish to be young again and do all the stuff that I, for loads of different reasons, did not when I was young? Yes, definitely. After that I want to go out with a bang.
Do I believe in an afterlife? Yes, and hope to be there, despite of what I said above. I think it will be totally different from what we can possibly imagine.

 

[Vertigo]

I think, as I mentioned on the other thread and as @Elckerlyc alluded to, that the question is very dependent on whether your are talking about the world of today or a post-scarcity world.

If you are talking about the world of today then stagnation becomes an issue; most people wish to advance themselves in their chosen career but, unless you are in a rapidly growing business (and ultimately not all businesses can be such), then you need the people above you to be promoted before you can be, and so on up the line. In a world of longevity people will not retire so people will not advance. Fancy spending the next ten thousand years cleaning the sewers? There are ways around that, so maybe everyone 'retires' on a pension at 100 and has say a decade of sabbatical to learn a new trade but not everyone is going to want to go back to school at 100!

You're going to need to figure a way of getting our memory capacity massively increased. Evolution has designed it to deal with our current lifespans. If those lifespans increase significantly then our memories will need to do so as well (unless you are happy with only remembering your last one hundred years.

The idea of ennui can also not be so glibly dispensed with. I could find many lifetimes worth of hobbies to entertain myself but could I put up with 9 to 5 working for several hundred years never mind several thousand? That is a question that cannot be answered without actually experiencing it. I'm 64 now and I could not imagine going back to another 50 years of the workplace grindstone.

The population issue is a huge one. To get a stable population you could only have children to replace deaths due to accident or other illnesses. This would require a very small birth rate which would also require special enclaves for families with children in order for them to grow up in a socially sensible way.

Edited to add: Let me just add one more point here. I think all issues that people come up with against immortality may be fixable. But, even assuming we manage to come up with the technologies to deal with the physical ones (worn out joints, teeth, memory etc.), we must still deal with the social ones. And, whilst there are always going to solutions to those, they are not trivial solutions. And, looking at our ability to deal with global warming for example, I'm far from convinced that the chances that we, as a species, can manage to do so are particularly high. Just because something is possible does not mean it is either inevitable or desirable.

 

[BAYLOR]

I think, as I mentioned on the other thread and as @Elckerlyc alluded to, that the question is very dependent on whether your are talking about the world of today or a post-scarcity world.

If you are talking about the world of today then stagnation becomes an issue; most people wish to advance themselves in their chosen career but, unless you are in a rapidly growing business (and ultimately not all businesses can be such), then you need the people above you to be promoted before you can be, and so on up the line. In a world of longevity people will not retire so people will not advance. Fancy spending the next ten thousand years cleaning the sewers? There are ways around that, so maybe everyone 'retires' on a pension at 100 and has say a decade of sabbatical to learn a new trade but not everyone is going to want to go back to school at 100!

You're going to need to figure a way of getting our memory capacity massively increased. Evolution has designed it to deal with our current lifespans. If those lifespans increase significantly then our memories will need to do so as well (unless you are happy with only remembering your last one hundred years.

The idea of ennui can also not be so glibly dispensed with. I could find many lifetimes worth of hobbies to entertain myself but could I put up with 9 to 5 working for several hundred years never mind several thousand? That is a question that cannot be answered without actually experiencing it. I'm 64 now and I could not imagine going back to another 50 years of the workplace grindstone.

The population issue is a huge one. To get a stable population you could only have children to replace deaths do to accident or other illnesses. This would require a very small birth rate which would also require special enclaves for families with children in order for them to grow up in a socially sensible way.

If you lived long enough you would ultimately lose all of your core memories . In other words, over time extended , you would likely cease to be you.

 

[Vertigo]

If you lived long enough you would ultimately lose all of your core memories . In other words, over time extended , you would likely cease to be you.

I suspect you are right!

 

[Elckerlyc]

That could be seen as a way to fight the issue of boredom! You forget, you change, you have a whole new life to experience...

Two months ago, in the 100-Word Anom Challenge, the theme was 'Immortals.' For the challenge I wrote (but did not enter) a story in which the immortals were enforced to undergo a body-swap every 1000 years, which did include animal body-forms as well, with all the handicaps (or abilities) that came with that particular body. Intelligence, memories and speak remained. Will your life remain interesting if your partner turns into a tortoise?

 

[AllanR]

That could be seen as a way to fight the issue of boredom! You forget, you change, you have a whole new life to experience...

A freind once stated she liked that she didn't remember books a year or two after reading as she could read it again as if it was new.

 

[Wayne Mack]

First, I think we need to define what constitutes immortality. Is it the possibility to live forever or is it the absolutely banishment of death? Does it include the ability to regenerate organs, etc. or continue living with the results of injuries?

If there is the possibility to live forever with the possibility of still being killed, it might tend reduce the amount of risk taking one would choose. If one would not die but continue to live with the consequences of injuries, that might also reduce the amount of risk taking. This might lead to a societal rejection of war, but might also reduce the level of protest that people would be willing to engage in. If people would have to live forever with constant pain or live with others with dementia, there might be a philosophical debate on whether individuals should be put to sleep as is sometimes done with pets.

There would also be financial aspects. With no end of life, one will never have enough money to retire. There will be an ever growing workforce. If the overall job market does not show the same level of growth, the result would be growing levels of poverty.

How would pre-adulthood adapt biologically? Would childhood and the onset of puberty be greatly delayed? Would childbearing years be extended indefinitely? If so, would having children (at least to the extent that these things are ever planned) be deferred as there is always time? The result cold be either a dearth of children or exceedingly large families.

Another dimension might be whether immortality is available to all or only a select few, either due to biology or financial well being or political connections.

 

[Ursa major]

But I refuse to be a jellyfish.

Have you fully taken into account the fringe benefits...?

​

 

[Dave]

First, I think we need to define what constitutes immortality.

Indeed, are we just talking spare part surgery or backing up memories electronically? With the former, you could still die from freak accidental death or being too far away from surgery. Even with the latter memories may degrade over a long length of time.

Evolution exists by the lucky circumstance that organisms breed and then die.

And so cells have an inbuilt clock that makes them age. It's something we don't yet fully understand, but would seem likely to very difficult to switch off, precisely because it is so fundamental to how life has evolved. (We are trying because it is responsible for Cancers, dementia and a host of other old people's diseases.)

I could not imagine going back to another 50 years of the workplace grindstone.

"No <swear words> way!"

I work part time, self-employed and freelance now, and you'd never get me to go back to 60-80 hour working weeks again while still never having enough time; constantly at the beck and call of employees, whatever the time of day, while stressed out by ridiculous requests from "the man," and from not climbing the corporate ladder quick enough; always constantly tired, and with disturbed sleep and eating patterns from working shifts, and from commuting in cattle truck trains, or stuck in a car in endless traffic jams, that never end.

No, I'll leave that to younger people to do, and I'll enjoy my semi-retirement. The idea of having to do that for another 50 years, never mind for another 1,000+ years would not make me excited about immortality.

 

[Valtharius]

My attitude on the transhumanism stuff is roughly this: I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Wayne Mack]

Evolution exists by the lucky circumstance that organisms breed and then die.

I am not sure either is necessary. I believe evolution only requires mutation and some external pressure that favors that mutation.

 

[Immortality]

Hmm. The "you're wrong" bit is not exactly conducive to debate. You do then invite people to give their reasons for being against immortality but it does have the sound of "hey give me material for my blog so I can use it to show how wrong you are".

Just wanted to highlight I am not entirely comfortable with how you've phrased what you've said - we love a well reasoned, supported by proven data debate on here and leading in with "you're wrong" is not exactly friendly. Maybe you are just being provocative to get attention but it does come across as not entirely open to reasoned debate.

You’re right. Sorry, really. I most definitely didn’t mean to come across that way. I apologize.

 

[Elckerlyc]

I am not sure either is necessary. I believe evolution only requires mutation and some external pressure that favors that mutation.

I think this should be answered by an expert on such matters. I am not one, but do suspect that external factors only causes variations. It favours certain already existing properties. It does not cause mutations, as in create new species. If my cells were to mutate it probably would be called cancer.
It seems unlikely to me that, if I were to live forever, I would at Infinity's End have mutated, solely by natural factors, into something unrecognizable. Essentially I will remain a two-legged, one-headed male called Elckerlyc.
But correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[AllanR]

mutation requires replication, otherwise it is transformation.
dictionary.com: Biology. Also called break . a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.

 

[Dave]

I believe evolution only requires mutation and some external pressure that favors that mutation.

Well, you don't get much mutation without sexual reproduction, and natural selection only works if that reproduction is prevented, not only, but certainly, mainly by death. So, I can't really see how breeding and death aren't important.

When DNA replicates there is always a chance of mutation. A mutation is just a transcription mistake. Most commonly these are SNPs where a single nucleotide is replaced with another or STRs where short sequences of DNA are repeated. In the vast majority of cases these have absolutely no effect on the gene phenotype - the expression of the gene. If there is an effect it will generally be negative, simply because the gene no longer does what it used to do, for example, make some important enzyme. I think Marvel comics have a lot to answer for.

 

[Immortality]

First, I think we need to define what constitutes immortality. Is it the possibility to live forever or is it the absolutely banishment of death? Does it include the ability to regenerate organs, etc. or continue living with the results of injuries?

If there is the possibility to live forever with the possibility of still being killed, it might tend reduce the amount of risk taking one would choose. If one would not die but continue to live with the consequences of injuries, that might also reduce the amount of risk taking. This might lead to a societal rejection of war, but might also reduce the level of protest that people would be willing to engage in. If people would have to live forever with constant pain or live with others with dementia, there might be a philosophical debate on whether individuals should be put to sleep as is sometimes done with pets.

There would also be financial aspects. With no end of life, one will never have enough money to retire. There will be an ever growing workforce. If the overall job market does not show the same level of growth, the result would be growing levels of poverty.

How would pre-adulthood adapt biologically? Would childhood and the onset of puberty be greatly delayed? Would childbearing years be extended indefinitely? If so, would having children (at least to the extent that these things are ever planned) be deferred as there is always time? The result cold be either a dearth of children or exceedingly large families.

Another dimension might be whether immortality is available to all or only a select few, either due to biology or financial well being or political connections.

I was thinking of just biological immortality myself, so you could still die from getting hit by a car, getting shot, etc., etc. but for the sake of the FAQ it should cover EVERY kind of immortality, otherwise it will be too short, so mind uploading, etc. etc. will all be addressed too. Everything should be addressed which is why I love all your replies.

Thanks everyone so far for all your concerns, questions, etc. about your issues with being immortal. You might see me on other forums asking the same thing about this Immortality FAQ . I made a list of all your concerns, questions, etc. about immortality and it’s quite a bit of questions, but still not enough to make a fleshed out FAQ. This FAQ needs to be as thorough as possible.