Eternal Life

[Kahn]

VT, what is your stance on being able to live for centuries on end without aging? With the help of science, of course, not some external force, faith if you will.

I think it'd be extremely prosperous. We'd, in a way, become that of which we worship. We'd become immortal. We'd be able to perfect ourselves, making us essential gods. We can die at will, of course. A gun shot to the face would still kill you. Getting hit by a train, those types of things would still take you out.

Would you be okay with defying nature, and faith, to become immortal?

Discuss, elaborate.

[Origami]

I see it in a simple manner: The human body and brain slowly breaks down on itself, so somewhere along the line I in vision an immortal as a useless vegetable of a man.
Or something like that.

[Kahn]

I see it in a simple manner: The human body and brain slowly breaks down on itself, so somewhere along the line I in vision an immortal as a useless vegetable of a man.
Or something like that.

I should've clarified further. None of that, either.

[Amnesiac]

It's an interesting idea. However, what do we have to offer humanity for that long? I think that if we're going to live forever, we have to have a reason why. I'm sorry, but people who haven't done a whole lot for the species shouldn't be consuming its resources for an unlimited amount of time. I see this idea as practical for scientists like Hawking and da Vinci or writers like Orwell and Plato, who could do so much with that amount of time, but not for people like us. Most people live their lives working one simple job.

Besides, something like this would also lead people to abandon the idea of reproduction and the "next generation".

[Kahn]

It's an interesting idea. However, what do we have to offer humanity for that long?

Advancement, perfecting ourselves. Making humanity perfect.

I think that if we're going to live forever, we have to have a reason why.

The reason stated above. Great minds today would be able to spend the time minds like Plato, or Da Vinci didn't have. They'd be able to perfect their works, or humanity as a whole. That is, if they worked in unison. Humanity isn't exactly known for such a thing.

I'm sorry, but people who haven't done a whole lot for the species shouldn't be consuming its resources for an unlimited amount of time.

Agreed.

Most people live their lives working one simple job.

That may be because they know that this is their only chance in life. It's going to end sooner or later, why not keep the stability? Were they to have a guranteed chance of living forever, save the occasional accident or gun shot, why would people feel confined to such a way of life? I believe that people would take it upon themselves to explore their options, or maybe even some delve into the arts more. Study our history and such.

Besides, something like this would also lead people to abandon the idea of reproduction and the "next generation".

Not necessarily. People love pleasure; especially sexual pleasure. With the amount of people we have now, I think it'd stay fairly the same.

[Sage]

Besides, something like this would also lead people to abandon the idea of reproduction and the "next generation".

Yes, it'd be so horrible living in a world with copious amounts of casual sex and not a single 13-year old new fag to be found. I support it fully- I believe that all of human history has been a tale of defying nature and liberation from the living faith and traditions of the dead.

Advancement, perfecting ourselves. Making humanity perfect.
I disagree with this to an extent, however. I feel life in itself, with all its trials and tribulations, is inherently enjoyable.

[Powerhawk]

Life would just get boring

[Amnesiac]

Advancement, perfecting ourselves. Making humanity perfect.

The reason stated above. Great minds today would be able to spend the time minds like Plato, or Da Vinci didn't have. They'd be able to perfect their works, or humanity as a whole. That is, if they worked in unison. Humanity isn't exactly known for such a thing.

Is it really possible to make humanity 'perfect,' though? There's always going to be the "odd ones out," the disabled and mentally unstable of the world.

I agree with you that the great minds would be able to advance humanity; that's something I fully support. However, what about the not-so-great minds? What happens to them, do they get eternal lives too? (see below for more)

That may be because they know that this is their only chance in life. It's going to end sooner or later, why not keep the stability? Were they to have a guranteed chance of living forever, save the occasional accident or gun shot, why would people feel confined to such a way of life? I believe that people would take it upon themselves to explore their options, or maybe even some delve into the arts more. Study our history and such.

While that's an interesting idea that would undoubtedly be true for many people, it certainly won't apply to all. No system is perfect. There are going to be people who abuse their eternal lives for the worse. There's always been a handful of people that stand in the way of progress – be it Hitler or Stalin, Kim Jong Il or today's social conservatives. What happens to them? Does everyone get to live forever, or only a select few? How do we regulate who gets to live forever and who doesn't? That's what'll sway me towards supporting or opposing this idea.

Not necessarily. People love pleasure; especially sexual pleasure. With the amount of people we have now, I think it'd stay fairly the same.

Yes, it'd be so horrible living in a world with copious amounts of casual sex and not a single 13-year old new fag to be found. I support it fully- I believe that all of human history has been a tale of defying nature and liberation from the living faith and traditions of the dead.

Actually, less emphasis on reproduction would be a good thing overall. Yeah, I flip-flopped after thinking about it.

[Sage]

Life would just get boring

Sure, if you're a boring person.

[deadpie]

Yes, I'm ok with defying it in terms of faith and nature, but not in a moral way really.

Don't know if it's fair for someone like me for example to live for infinite amount of years right now when other geniuses probably could of profited more off living longer.

I don't really know much to say on this subject. In other words, I don't know if people deserve to live forever either. Allot of people would abuse that ability of eternal life obviously.

[sdude]

Life would fail to be enjoyed, your friends would grow older and die, your family ages above you...I don't think it would be cool at all...

[Sage]

Life would fail to be enjoyed, your friends would grow older and die, your family ages above you...I don't think it would be cool at all...

What the OP was getting at would apply to all people, not just you alone. If your friends wish to live for hundreds and thousands of years, they can.

[Kahn]

Is it really possible to make humanity 'perfect,' though? There's always going to be the "odd ones out," the disabled and mentally unstable of the world.

Think of it this way. Were they able to eliminate such a gene, what's stopping them from eliminating things that cause disease, or disability, fully? Like Small Pox. Eventually, it would become so suppressed it would be eradicated altogether. Disease that is.

Disability would be as easy as eliminating the aging gene. Or more difficult, I wouldn't know. Put it this way; were we to eliminate the aging gene we would move onto eliminating faults in ourselves. It only makes sense. Why just stop at aging?

While that's an interesting idea that would undoubtedly be true for many people, it certainly won't apply to all. No system is perfect. There are going to be people who abuse their eternal lives for the worse. There's always been a handful of people that stand in the way of progress – be it Hitler or Stalin

To my knowledge, Hitler and Stalin are acclaimed for continuing the war in Europe which advanced a lot of technology. The development of WMD's, warfare, automobiles, science. The experiments both of these leaders performed on unwilling subjects showed conclusive evidence that genes can be altered. Stalin tried making gorilla men, which in the end hilariously failed.

More so Hitler, though. Stalin did perform genetic experiments on people, though..

Kim Jong Il or today's social conservatives. What happens to them?

Like I said before, people can still die. The public wouldn't want monsters such as Hitler, Kim Jong Il or Stalin ruling. I don't think social conservatives are, more or less, a blight that can go with Stalin, Hitler, and Kim Jong Il, but I do believe they are people that are undeserving of such a feat.

Does everyone get to live forever, or only a select few? How do we regulate who gets to live forever and who doesn't? That's what'll sway me towards supporting or opposing this idea.

For now, I can't think of a rational and fair system as to how individuals would be chosen to live forever. I'm much too tired, but to answer the former question, no. Not everyone gets to live forever.

[Amnesiac]

Think of it this way. Were they able to eliminate such a gene, what's stopping them from eliminating things that cause disease, or disability, fully? Like Small Pox. Eventually, it would become so suppressed it would be eradicated altogether. Disease that is.

Disability would be as easy as eliminating the aging gene. Or more difficult, I wouldn't know. Put it this way; were we to eliminate the aging gene we would move onto eliminating faults in ourselves. It only makes sense. Why just stop at aging?

I think there'd be a point where they'd run into a brick wall. Some things, like cancer, can't really be eradicated. Cancer is a good example because it's a random cellular defect that's both unpredictable and can happen at any time.

Again, I agree that the "great minds" should be able to live forever and help advance humanity.



To my knowledge, Hitler and Stalin are acclaimed for continuing the war in Europe which advanced a lot of technology. The development of WMD's, warfare, automobiles, science. The experiments both of these leaders performed on unwilling subjects showed conclusive evidence that genes can be altered. Stalin tried making gorilla men, which in the end hilariously failed.

More so Hitler, though. Stalin did perform genetic experiments on people, though..

Well, the establishment of brutal dictatorships that killed millions of people trumps those accomplishments, in my opinion anyway.

Like I said before, people can still die. The public wouldn't want monsters such as Hitler, Kim Jong Il or Stalin ruling. I don't think social conservatives are, more or less, a blight that can go with Stalin, Hitler, and Kim Jong Il, but I do believe they are people that are undeserving of such a feat.

Okay. So now we have a system where the bad aren't allowed to live forever and the good are. Still, there are going to be holes. People who act good and plan bad things, "wolves in sheep's clothing". However, every system has problems. Overall, I agree that the people who have lived 'good' lives should be able to live longer than the ones who have spent their ruining others'.

For now, I can't think of a rational and fair system as to how individuals would be chosen to live forever. I'm much too tired, but to answer the former question, no. Not everyone gets to live forever.

Interesting.

[Magus]

Again, I agree that the "great minds" should be able to live forever and help advance humanity.
"Great Minds" also have limits. If you people think that we can achieve immortality, and to forget that we can achieve cosmic intelligence also?
So, for this we don't need some politicians who did things for the laughs.

Most people aren't thinking of immortality of the body, but immortality of the mind. If this work, then your scientist, politicians and real geniuses can live and commune with us even after death, without having a physical medium. This way, you don't have to worry about resources.

If you think we can achieve immortality, we would have achieved another kind of thing that will keep us living forever without depleting resources - Molecule generator - for this, I will let your imagination tell you what it is.

And yes, Cancer can be destroyed with the current biotechnological trends.

[darkwoon]

I see three major problems with "eternal" life...

How do you select people who deserve it? In our current world, only people with lots of money or political power would get the treatment. Do I want a world with eternal Steve Jobs, Georges Bush, Mohammad Khatami? Let's get real: for the most part, people receiving eternal life wouldn't be those deserving it.

Second, it would go against the constant refresh of population the life/death cycle provides. Aging did not appear without reasons IMHO - it is a necessary part of the evolutive process, ensuring that the population gets constantly replaced by different individuals. Immortals would thus be a burden, as they'd monopolize functions they'd normally have given up long ago. Variety and creativity would thus suffer, as most immortals would have a definite interest at maintaining a status-quo.

Third, "eternity is a very long time to fill". What would there be to discover after 1000 years of life? After 2000? Where is the taste of life once you tried everything you wanted to try, when you got all skills you wanted to learn? It would be as in a computer RPG, when you've maxed out your character: you usually stop playing, as there is nothing else to do.

I'd be happy if we found ways to stay young longer - but not with a significantly altered lifespan. That would have terrible consequences, I think.

[Fushigi]

things will not be the same again... and life is so meaningless if that happens :P

[Sage]

How do you select people who deserve it? In our current world, only people with lots of money or political power would get the treatment. Do I want a world with eternal Steve Jobs, Georges Bush, Mohammad Khatami? Let's get real: for the most part, people receiving eternal life wouldn't be those deserving it.
On the contrary, the most likely way we'll end aging is to eliminate or modify the genes in our DNA associated with it- and with that, we'll also be able to cure or prevent a lot of diseases, disorders, and other burdens of aging. Senior citizens take up a lot of the money that goes into healthcare- and if the problems they face were entirely eliminated, we would save untold millions and billions of dollars. That's incentive to keep as many people alive as possible.

Second, it would go against the constant refresh of population the life/death cycle provides. Aging did not appear without reasons IMHO - it is a necessary part of the evolutive process, ensuring that the population gets constantly replaced by different individuals. Immortals would thus be a burden, as they'd monopolize functions they'd normally have given up long ago. Variety and creativity would thus suffer, as most immortals would have a definite interest at maintaining a status-quo.
I don't think this is a very well-founded argument. Evolution isn't a concern of ours, as its main purpose is to help a species adapt to its environment, and humans don't adapt to their environment anymore- we create our own. I also don't believe immortals would have any more of an interest in maintaining a status-quo as anyone else- There's no way to predict how conservative someone would be when they're 80 or 90 years old if they grew up in a socially progressive time and place and maintain the body and health of a 20 year old.

Third, "eternity is a very long time to fill". What would there be to discover after 1000 years of life? After 2000? Where is the taste of life once you tried everything you wanted to try, when you got all skills you wanted to learn? It would be as in a computer RPG, when you've maxed out your character: you usually stop playing, as there is nothing else to do.
This is where I feel you underestimate the grandiose scale and variety life has to offer. Simply because you feel you would grow bored in that amount of time does not mean everyone feels the same way. The future itself also presents countless new things to do, many of which I'm sure we've not even thought of yet. Compared to 1000 years ago, the average person has exponentially more to do in a single week than many people had to do in an entire lifetime.

things will not be the same again... and life is so meaningless if that happens :P
Life is already meaningless. Deal with it.

[Fushigi]

@sage... for me life is not meaningless .... every person in my life give a meaning to my life :D so i wouldnt agree that life today is not meaningful .. there is a meaning in everything :D

[Sage]

@sage... for me life is not meaningless .... every person in my life give a meaning to my life :D so i wouldnt agree that life today is not meaningful .. there is a meaning in everything :D

My point exactly. Life doesn't inherently have a meaning. You give it a meaning. You give it a meaning right now and there's no reason you couldn't give it a meaning in two hundred years time.

[Fushigi]

hahaha ok ok!! but it would be awesome if ur the only one who can live longer u will meet new ppl ;D but in the contrary there will be a negative effect :D

[darkwoon]

On the contrary, the most likely way we'll end aging is to eliminate or modify the genes in our DNA associated with it- and with that, we'll also be able to cure or prevent a lot of diseases, disorders, and other burdens of aging. Senior citizens take up a lot of the money that goes into healthcare- and if the problems they face were entirely eliminated, we would save untold millions and billions of dollars. That's incentive to keep as many people alive as possible.
Sure, sure, but you don't expect such modifications to be performed for free. Or, for what matters, on the population as a whole.

As for the economical argument, you'd not have to deal with aging issues anymore, but you'd have with a geometrically increasing population... Again, this poses the issue of ressource sharing.

Of course, I'm not opposed to genetic therapy - quite the contrary - but eternal life is definitely not going to reduce the amount of problems humanity has to face: quite the contrary, I think it will make the current social and economical issues increasingly important and difficult to solve.

I believe that immortal life is a nice theorical concept - but given the current way humanity is organized, I'm ready to bet it will not be widely used for the benefit of humanity, but rather be used as a powerful tool of power and social control.

I don't think this is a very well-founded argument. Evolution isn't a concern of ours, as its main purpose is to help a species adapt to its environment, and humans don't adapt to their environment anymore- we create our own.
It is true if you speak about the natural environment - we did a poor job with the long-term consequences, but yes, for the most part, we adapt it to our needs more than the opposite.

But it wasn't the natural environment I was really considering as central. It is the social one that I think is nowadays the key. Survival of societies and civilizations as a whole replaced the challenges for individual survival. Social adaptation is the main concern of humanity since it started creating organized societies about ten thousand years ago.

I also don't believe immortals would have any more of an interest in maintaining a status-quo as anyone else- There's no way to predict how conservative someone would be when they're 80 or 90 years old if they grew up in a socially progressive time and place and maintain the body and health of a 20 year old.
Oh, but you don't get it at all - it is not a question of educational environment, of generation, or anything like that. It is a question of comfort and balance of power, regardless of age or milieu. The main reason why humans made research and sought progress in all domains is because they tried to improve their conditions of life. But if you are immortal and holding political and economical power, why would you try to shake the status-quo? Unless you are an atypical case, you'll do whatever you can to actually secure your position - and the easiest way to achieve this is to keep uncertainty and randomness away.

This is where I feel you underestimate the grandiose scale and variety life has to offer. Simply because you feel you would grow bored in that amount of time does not mean everyone feels the same way. The future itself also presents countless new things to do, many of which I'm sure we've not even thought of yet. Compared to 1000 years ago, the average person has exponentially more to do in a single week than many people had to do in an entire lifetime.
This is true, but you simply cannot compare how society evolved during the last 1000 years to how it would evolve if Earth was directed by immortals - the whole fundamentals of the game would be changed. And even if our possibilites would be wider, they wouldn't be limiteless.

Life is already meaningless. Deal with it.
That's your own opinion. I found enough meaning in life to enjoy every minute of it. But being immortal wouldn't add an ounce to its value for me.

In summary, my position is this: immortal life? Sure, that would be nice. But are we ready to manage it? I definitely don't think so.

[Perseus]

How did I miss this thread?

Anyway, to an extent I wouldn't mind living for a very long time. Sort of like the Asari (http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Asari) from Mass Effect. They live for centuries before they did. I wouldn't mind that because I would like to see how things progress around us and the changes after centuries. Though, eternal sounds awful to me because I just couldn't handle that and would want to die after being alive for so long.

[Azunite]

I wouldn't want to be an immortal. I'd hate to see gaming industry collapse under the boots of noobs in the future

[Sage]

In summary, my position is this: immortal life? Sure, that would be nice. But are we ready to manage it? I definitely don't think so.

I'd argue that knowing full-well something is going to come with many negative consequences has seldom if ever stood in the way of scientific progress throughout human history.

[Korashk]

Not one mention of non-biological immortality. Come on.

Download my bring into a computer and let me exist.

[Magus]

Not one mention of non-biological immortality. Come on. Download my bring into a computer and let me exist.
I actually did, but it seems you don't even bother reading my posts.
Most people aren't thinking of immortality of the body, but immortality of the mind. If this work, then your scientist, politicians and real geniuses can live and commune with us even after death, without having a physical medium. This way, you don't have to worry about resources.

[Dark_Hellfire]

Would everyone else have access to this life extending miricle or is it only limited to me?

I feel if I was alone with it, that I would wish for an end far earlier then what I would have. Seeing people die around me that I love knowing I will keep on going would be hard

If everyone had access to it, I would say that it would be an interesting thing. Except I kinda feel we live our lives, as short as they are, because we only have x amount of years worth of stuff to offer.

That said, it would turn into a problem due to children being born but people not dieing at the same rate. It would result in over population and such. Think Soylent Green

[The Joker]

I find that people would not be as urgent to go out and do fun or educationally interesting things if they were able to be immortal, as in immortality would be a good excuse for the lazy to do the opposite of all the things mentioned in the thread, like discovering things and learning new ideas, stuff like that.

[Noooooooooo]

Eternal life won't happen any time soon. Besides, living forever would be b0ring :P