Pro-Immortality science fiction?

[Immortality]

Your argument in this post is all about whether immortality will ever be possible, not about whether it is desirable which was the observation that you are answering. It is quite possible that immortality (barring accidental death) may eventually be achieved but whether it is desirable or not is a very different question.

This topic has been discussed on the Chrons many times before. I think the most recent thread on the topic might have been this one: Suppose Science Made Immortality Into A Reality?

I think I'd refer you to that thread if you want to discuss the desirability of immortality.

Regarding books that are for or against immortality, however, I'd suggest that most are neither; it is simply part of the world building. I have read many books that have immortality, or at least longevity, as part of the world building but few, if any, in which the pros and cons of it are the central message or indeed part of it. Many will highlight, in an incidental manner, certain advantages and disadvantages as their story progresses but I can think of few in which it is treated as categorically a good or bad thing.

I would also argue that if you are interested in immortality you should read books that present both stances rather than just abandoning a book as soon as it presents a negative aspect of immortality. Only by doing so will you get a balanced view on the subject. In fact I'd suggest that it is always important (possibly more so) to read literature that challenges your beliefs rather than only literature that supports them.

Incidentally I think the boredom you speak of is one of the least significant problems of longevity there are far far bigger issues with it as discussed at some length in that thread. I would also add that the pros and cons of longevity are largely dependent on whether they are set in a post-scarcity civilisation. A post-scarcity civilisation would negate many of the negative aspects of longevity, without it longevity becomes much more problematic.

Yeah, I will post in another forum. Very Sorry. I feel bad for writing that. Sorry.

But for now I will just post once more here.

As for reading both points of view on a subject, well of course that’s a staple of my skepticism. I have read anti-immortality literature too, so I know what you are talking about. After careful consideration , I weighed the pros and cons , and I finally decided on the pro-immortality side, lol, must be pretty obvious at this point right? Haha

I ask you then to do the same thing, but will you? I have done it, so will you read the free book I mentioned and the book by Dr.Aubrey de Grey especially ( Ending Aging ) I don’t think you will, but I hope you do. because I have read many books that take a pragmatic stance on immortality and also a completely anti- immortality stance too. I’m afraid they are not convincing in the least.For example I read the great skeptics book Michael Shermer on money, and he wrote another one on utopia and immortality. In those books he was not as skeptical as he was in his early work. He let his own politics get in the way of seeing the dangers of state capitalism, he calls it capitalism, so he already made a mistake in that book. we don’t live in a pure capitalist society, if we did there would be no regulations and very soon killings would start “ hey give me your TV, this is pure capitalism I can just take it” if you read Adam Smith you will see that he states pure capitalism, today known as Anarcho-capitalism would break down the very fabric of society according to Adam Smith, he was against capitalism. He was for what we have now known as state capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism would bring us pure barbarism, people just taking things believe me that’s what happens without regulation, without regulation we will start killing each other for a Playstation or a car or a house. I would if there was Anarcho-capitalism I would steak everything in sight, I’m kidding, but most proper would. As for his book on immortality it was clear he hadn’t even read Dr. Aubrey de Greys book even though he mentioned him. Shermer must be stuck in some political dungeon from which he can’t escape. His politics are effecting his skepticism, just watch his podcast on YouTube and you will see what I mean. He’s completely lost touch with real skepticism and someone should let him know that because his books , his early works were good skepticism, but the one about capitalism and the one about immortality and utopia wasn’t skepticism at all. It’s the job of a skeptic to tell another skepic he’s not being skeptical anymore. Man has he drifted, I still watching him for his guests, but boy he’s just not the same skeptic he used to be.

Do you have the right to take away my choice to be immortal? Of course not , just like I wouldn’t mind your choice to be die. As for whether immortality is desirable, well what right do you have to take away my choice to be immortal, if it ever came to it? It’s desirable to me, do you have the right to kill me because I decided to be immortal. And I’m not forcing immortality on anyone, just the choice. You have the choice to die, just like I have the choice to live forever. It’s the American way. We can’t interfere with others happiness, unless that happiness is dangerous and harmful to society. Immortality will not be harmful to society because you are in the majority, the people chose to die. That’s fine with me if your ok with dying. I wouldn’t personally want you to die because you are clearly very smart, I am not but I do know ce certain topics well. There won’t be many immortals because I have come across a lot of people like you that are not for immortality, in fact I have met people that want to kill me if I become immortal, now is that right? I don’t think so. I will put long debates and such in another forum. I’m done here with that.

Still if someone finds what I’m looking for in fiction by all means please give me more recommendations. I could use a lot more then I got. Alright cheers mate . And take care everyone. Peace

 

[Rodders]

The Culture has immortality throughout, but the Hydrogen Sonata is the only one in which immortality is a part of the wider story.

To be fair, i think there is a certain amount of naturalism to the negativity of an eternal life. If you look at your parents getting older you'll notice certain things. My Dad's world seems to have gotten a lot smaller. He's a lot less likely to try new things and what he does like tend to be things such as music that he listened to in his youth. I can see myself going down the same route with my own habits. Much of this can be linked to the body getting older and more prone to aches and pains, so a new, younger eternal body would change some of this, but i suspect only for a few hundred years. Besides, the mind naturally gets more cynical and closed off as it gets older. Have any of you tried to make friends as an adult???

Personally, i'd love to have an eternally young body, but i suspect an eternal mind is something else entirely.

 

[wearywanderer64]

Hello everyone,

Besides the book ‘The Trashumanist Wager’ by Zoltan Istvan ( he ran for US president during the time of Hillary and Trump, unfortunately he didn’t win, but check him out on YouTube he’s a fascinating guy and has some great ideas ) I can not find even one pro-immortality science fiction book, so I beg you all, do you know of any?

Every science fiction book or short story I have read on the subject of immortality is always written as a very bad thing. For example the author of ‘Dune’( Frank Hubert) wrote a book called ‘The Heaven Makers’, where immortality is a living hell for human beings.

This will be a challenge for all of you I doubt you will know of, or find a book that is pro-immortality in nature. Good luck and I hope you find some great pro-immortality science fiction books. Even short stories I like too, as little no as it’s science fiction. If nobody knows of any or can’t find anything like I have tried, then perhaps a fantasy book recommendation that is pro-immortality. If you can’t find any in fantasy either, then please find me a novel, novella, novelette or short stories in any genre. I’m desperate to find it. ‘The Transhumanist Wager’ was great, but I definitely want to read more pro-immortality books.

Thanks so much for you help and your time,
Immortality

Techinically, my story is not about immortality, but the characters appear the same as they did on earth i.e .they live in Purgatory.

 

[Immortality]

It’s not clear to me why the OP is so set on only reading pro-immortality novels, at the expense of everything else. Seems like an unusual obsession to me, so I’m curious.

Are you kidding me, I read every kind of fiction, didn’t you read my posts. I’m just so focused on it here because as I stated before there is only one book The Transhumanist Wager by Zoltan Istvan that has a positive outlook on pro-immortality. I’m simply seeking out more like it , but I have come to the conclusion that this philosophical science fiction book is the only one of its kind. Still if others find something that is in my criteria, then bring it on. Plus the name of my thread is “ pro-immortality science fiction ? “ so wouldn’t it stand to reason I would focus on that subject?

 

[Vertigo]

As for reading both points of view on a subject, well of course that’s a staple of my skepticism.

Andy yet you stated earlier (hence my comment):

I started to read ‘To Live Forever’ but it had a negative stance on the subject of immortality, so I stopped reading it.

Do you have the right to take away my choice to be immortal?

I wouldn't take away your right to have immortality but I might have to refuse you the right to have children! The book of essays you mentioned is mostly about the science which I'm not interested in; I'm fully convinced we will eventually achieve some sort of longevity. However of the ethical essays only one seems to address the issue of population largely on the basis that they think population growth is slowing and is therefore not an issue (a whole other debate that one but not for here). The problem is that zero population growth means that births and deaths are in balance. Take away death and you have a serious imbalance.

 

[AllanR]

The problem is that zero population growth means that births and deaths are in balance. Take away death and you have a serious imbalance.

I agree if we are stuck on earth, yet if longevity occurs simultanious with settlement in the Solar System and beyond, much less of a worry.

 

[Vertigo]

I agree if we are stuck on earth, yet if longevity occurs simultanious with settlement in the Solar System and beyond, much less of a worry.

Yes and no. Do the sums on the number of people who would have to lift off the Earth per day in order to balance out population growth. Currently there are around 140 million births per year. So assuming immortality and allowing for deaths from other causes, this means you would have to have say 100 million people emigrate off planet every year just to maintain the status quo. That's around 240,000 people every single day of the year! Then stop and think about how long each journey to colonies around the solar system might take and you are talking about an enormous fleet of space ships just shipping colonists out. Never mind trading.

I've always considered the argument that colonising space will solve the population problems to be a huge red herring!

Or course women are only born with a finite amount of ova so unless someone figures out how to increase that figure then most of our immortals will be infertile. However it seems likely that in such a situation it would become normal to have all your ova frozen upon reaching puberty which sort of balances out that argument.

 

[AllanR]

I think the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson could qualify. Though the characters have only extended their lifespan without immortality, it is presented as the first stage in the science. (its been a long time since I read it, so I can't remember the characters or society particular reaction to life extension)
Someone else mentioned the City and the Stars by Clark. All the characters but one is hundreds of millions of years old. The main is a newborn. Nobody seems to have a problem with immortality (though there are numerous social quirks surrounding it)

 

[AllanR]

Currently there are around 140 million births per year. So assuming immortality and allowing for deaths from other causes, this means you would have to have say 100 million people emigrate off planet every year just to maintain the status quo.

Population growth slows dramatically with wealth increas. Currently the majority of the worlds population is somewhat poor. Also population growth can be severly limited by social/political situations like China's one child policy. It is quite plasauble that before something like immortality or substantial life increase is achieved that population growth goes negative for decades or centuries.

 

[Vertigo]

Population growth slows dramatically with wealth increas. Currently the majority of the worlds population is somewhat poor. Also population growth can be severly limited by social/political situations like China's one child policy. It is quite plasauble that before something like immortality or substantial life increase is achieved that population growth goes negative for decades or centuries.

Yes I agree completely. I'm only making the argument that it's not quite that simple. We have to make a number of other assumptions/wishes/hopes before the equations pan out. For example Europe is relatively wealthy and has a relatively low birth rate but it's still around 4 million a year so Europe alone, at the current rate, would have to ship out around 11,000 per day.

However, in fairness, whilst I do believe we will have significant longevity eventually, I don't expect it to be soon so maybe we will have figured out how to deal with it by the time we do. But please forgive me if I'm a little sceptical about that!

 

[Immortality]

From WebMD :

Thought it may be of interest to everyone. Notice his beard, that’s why I have nick named Dr. Aubrey de Grey ‘Father Time’. His beard is legendary.
Once they work on getting you that first thousand years by the way, they won't just stop their by the way, no they will continue their research and will still be working in the lab to create booster shots so you can live say to 10,000 years of age and ultimately you would become biologically immortal.

 

[Vertigo]

My problem with that is that he's essentially saying that technology moves along real fast so it's inevitable that we'll have longevity treatments soon. After all 20 years ago it would have been hard to predict how far we have now come with genetics. But that's just the problem we can't predict it reliably. Yes, technology moves fast when we look back on it but we are notoriously bad at predicting exactly what technology is going to move fast, exactly what breakthroughs will come (otherwise they wouldn't really be breakthroughs!).

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying it won't happen, or even won't happen soon, and I think it's great people are working on it, it's just that speculating on what breakthroughs are going to come and, importantly, when is frankly quite fruitless and something we have historically been extraordinarily bad at, particularly in the field of medicine. For example we have made great strides in the treatment of cancer but, as far as I'm aware, we are still a million miles away from a general "cure for cancer."