Jump to content
Legosi (Tani Coyote)

Immortality - A Decision

Recommended Posts

 

Sorry I had to.

 

I don't know how could society exist if that is possible if everybody could live for "forever" would anyone be motivated to do anything any more at first people still would be motivated but after a certain about of time probably not. What would an immortal society be like? Sounds like a very selfish one to me?

 

I think people would get bored and eventually commit suicide because they feel they have done everything.

 

Also a procedure like this would be exploited by the rich and the elite.sleep.png

 

God some of these comments are really cold to me. 

Edited by BW199148

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long time ago I would have said yes to this but now im not sure at all really. At one hand I will be able to live my life longer and get to do everything I've wanted without having to die but on the other hand I would most likely live until everybody who I knew was gone and with no kids (which I personally don't care about one way or another at the moment) it would be kind of lonely so I will probably decide later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope (but that might change as I actually approach death).

 

Life would lose its meaning to me. It would be a sterile flatline. At most I'd like to extend my life by 10-20 years to properly enjoy my retirement. But living forever? No thanks. First and foremost I'd have to keep working forever, because I'd be perfectly able to work. Can't use age or deteriorating health to avoid it. Moreover, how would jobs work? If older people never retired, because they have no need to, how would people get promotions? How would you move yourself up in the economic ladder short of someone incompetent getting fired?

Sports would become a complete joke because the nanites and shit would render the physical challenges of say.....a 10K run, irrelevant.

Dictators would love to live forever. Substance abuse would be off the charts, because there are no side effects. Entire industries and countless livelihoods in the Pharmaceutical industry would become obsolete, because who the fuck needs medicine any more.

 

Things would just be boring.

Plus, after a few billion years, we'd have to experience the extreme unpleasantness of being vaporised by the Sun as it dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that if I wanted to do things I never did by the time I reach 60 then I'd take it. I mean, to be able to do all the things that I wished I'd have done, travel the world, meet new people, see when comic books are destroyed, it would be awesome. 

 

Then again, death is natural and we have to accept that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, the guy cracked the secret of immortality but he couldn't change his crappy name to a better one? =O

 

Had to reference Gerald Robotnik somehow. :P

 

On the subject of fertility, I'm homosexual so if I ever decide to be a father it'd be through adoption anyway.

 

Actually, by the time we have this, we'd likely have perfected male eggs and female sperm, and probably test tube babies while we were at it. Two men or two women would be able to have a child that was biologically theirs.

 

I don't know how could society exist if that is possible if everybody could live for "forever" would anyone be motivated to do anything any more at first people still would be motivated but after a certain about of time probably not.

 

I think people would get bored and eventually commit suicide because they feel they have done everything.

 

Also a procedure like this would be exploited by the rich and the elite.sleep.png

 

Do you think about your death every time you go do something? I just think about it as something fun or necessary.

 

Sure folks will commit suicide, but what's inherently wrong with that if you feel you've done all you need to do? I've always disliked how suicide tends to get lumped in with the popularly-reported version where you're emotionally unstable and just gave up trying.

 

I mentioned that the procedure is cost-effective, so the rich/elite thing doesn't apply in this scenario.

 

Moreover, how would jobs work? If older people never retired, because they have no need to, how would people get promotions? How would you move yourself up in the economic ladder short of someone incompetent getting fired?

Sports would become a complete joke because the nanites and shit would render the physical challenges of say.....a 10K run, irrelevant.

Dictators would love to live forever. Substance abuse would be off the charts, because there are no side effects. Entire industries and countless livelihoods in the Pharmaceutical industry would become obsolete, because who the fuck needs medicine any more.

 

Things would just be boring.

Plus, after a few billion years, we'd have to experience the extreme unpleasantness of being vaporised by the Sun as it dies.

 

The economy likely would simply change to the new variables it has to work with. I wouldn't be surprised if people spent decades not working only to resume working afterward; we could quite possibly rotate jobs in this manner. This is assuming there's no standard social safety net, of course.

 

What's wrong with a high if you don't have to worry about health effects? All the stigma towards drugs is ENTIRELY traditionalism or the destructive effects it can have. If you can partake in a substance that makes you think your nose is a kangaroo and the moon's made of gravy, but have zero effects afterward, what's wrong with that?

 

As for medical professions - well, tough cookies. When a job's obsolete, it's supposed to disappear. That's just how it is. People who hauled stuff by mule had to yield to truckers, telegraph operators had to yield to the telephone, etc. Society ends those jobs and recycles the people back into the labor pool.

 

As for the Sun exploding, I presume we'd develop space colonies long before then given that we no longer are spending 1/3 of our lives in bed, nor are we having to constantly educate a new class of scientists. Our research would go through the roof.

 

If life ever got boring for someone, they could choose to end it. What one wants in life depends on the person; my mother goes insane if she's stuck at home, whereas I can sit at my computer chair for 24+ hours straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want immortality to begin with.

 

Life is precious not because we simply get to live it, but because we have a such a limited time to make the best of it. Think of all the significant milestones in life from your first childhood friends, to all your hard-earned achievements, to perhaps finding that special someone or forging a family to call your very own. When we're old and grey we can look back and cherish these memories not simply out of nostalgia, but because we know we made the best out of the time we had. Your memories will hold a special meaning unique to you and you alone.

 

Now what kind of meaning would life have if you and possibly your loved ones were all immortal? I'd think after a few centuries you'd start growing bored of each other more than anything else and life would start to stagnate. Even if you move on from your old life and start anew, memories that were once so dear to you might forever lose meaning if you can constantly replace them as if they were nothing more then a few goldfish swimming in your aquarium. Sure you might cherish these new ones for a while...until they inevitably get replaced again. And again. And again. I guess some people might be fine with this and just view it as an opportunity to live as many "lives" as they want; I personally wouldn't be happy with this. Even if I were to try my best to hold onto as many of my precious memories as possible, I'd think that after a few thousand years I'd begin to forget anything and everything about childhood or the people precious to me who didn't take the immortality procedure. I don't want to treat life as disposable, I want to treat it as the precious commodity it is.

 

Death is a natural, inevitable part of our existence. I do not fear it. I only fear that I will look back on my life full of regrets. That is why I strive to do the best I can and be the best that I can be. What is there to strive for when I have an eternity to live?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with this notion that life suddenly loses meaning if one becomes immortal. I don't think it does. The things I've done and enjoyed were not done with any intent in my to "make the most of life," (which no even can quantify anyway. What does that even mean, specifically? What things should I be doing so I can get the most utility out of my life? I would wager near to none of the shit I'm doing would qualify in a rational sense.) They were done because I either like doing those things or because I've grown to accept them as customary things to do, meaning these things have inherent value that exists regardless of the fact that I can only enjoy so many of them.

 

After all, I don't decide to go to a movie because, "Shit, if statistics are true, I've only got 50 years left. Better see every Pixar movie and then some." No; I go to the theater to sit down and watch a movie because watching a movie is inherently fun. Where does the fact that I can only watch so many movies come into the equation? It doesn't. It never does. Again, if it ever did, I'd probably feel awful for even watching a movie in the first place when I could be doing something that has more objective use to society instead of indulging myself like a privileged westernized bastard on rapidly flashing images for two hours. This feeling of self-loathing would intensify once I remembered the fact that, indeed, my life is not guaranteed. A plane could crash on my house after I write this post, ending a life that has honestly taken more from society than given back.

Getting away from that, this whole notion only raises the question: If things are only precious because we have a limited time to do them in, do they initially start out as being wastes of time and then gain value? If I have 50 years to do something now, does that same something then become more important if I wait for ten years? Another ten? Another ten? Does it become extremely fucking important when I start thinking of hospice service?

 

If so, I feel this doesn't jive with the idea that things we genuinely enjoy doing with people become boring over time. If things would become boring if we were made or always immortal, then clearly whatever set value they have to the individual is inevitably going to decrease as time goes on. But going back to the movie example, I've always liked movies. In fact, I probably like movies more than I did as a kid, because I've grown up, developing more discerning tastes, having been able to go to a film school, and learned how they're made as well as met people in the industry. Who knows what other experiences I'm going to go through as time goes on?

Which leads me to my next point: The world is not static. The way we make and experience things now is not always going to be the way we do so. Things adapt, evolve, and innovate. So, going back to movies, maybe we will eventually get to glass-less 3D where the images are popping out and moving around the auditorium with perfect depth of field and clarity for everyone regardless of where they're sitting one day. Or maybe we'll start watching movies outside again as building projection becomes less expensive and mathematically intensive, and subsequently, who knows what kinds of movies we're going to get that take full advantage of that technology? Who knows what's going to happen in general? I don't, you don't, and it's that unpredictability that also gives living continuous value. Things don't get boring! They reinvigorate themselves time and time again, and new things come along to satiate us too. New people to experience and new places to go will always happen either until we leave Earth or it's destroyed.... And then, what happens if we leave Earth? Infinite questions and infinite possibilities to explore.

 

tl;dr: Life isn't only precious because it's limited. Life is also precious because we have merely evolved the mental capacity to experience it on a significant level compared to everything else in recorded history. This would be true regardless of whether we lived for five years, eighty years, a million, or never died at all. We also do things primarily because we enjoy them- our lifespan be damned. And we will always do what we enjoy doing regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say that being immortal carries a psychological risk of watching everyone you know and love die over time and you having to possibly adapt to changing customs and such that will happen as you continue living.

 

If you can shirk that off, then great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion, after thinking harder about it,(depending on what you believe) plays a larger role in this than I thought before. For example: I believe that immortality will be given to all,after we all die and are resurrected. This is a gift Mormons believe that will be given to all no matter what they've done.(this means no death,perfected bodies,being with family forever,yadda yadda). So if this was true(Which I believe it is) Why would I want to live in a immortal life where war,death,greed,lust,sin and sadness is still there, or growing when I could gain the same in a life where I'm happy with my family, peace and joy is everywhere and there is no death.

 

Now that is just my belief on this. Others may have their own ideas on life after death or just not believe life has purpose. I was just stating in specifics, why i wouldn't want to be immortal in the state of the world now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freeze sperm, get immortality - theory overcome! It could be similar for a woman, birth child, get immortality.

 

 

It would honestly be a hard choice for me, but I could see the military using this on it's best men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freeze sperm, get immortality - theory overcome! It could be similar for a woman, birth child, get immortality.

 

I get the strangest feeling the government would issue an injunction to terminate the sperm, though... the point of the forced sterilisation is to control population growth. Women who give birth would probably be more fortunate since killing an infant is very, very different from nuking a sperm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if this was true(Which I believe it is) Why would I want to live in a immortal life where war,death,greed,lust,sin and sadness is still there, or growing when I could gain the same in a life where I'm happy with my family, peace and joy is everywhere and there is no death.

Perhaps you would live long enough to find the answer that could do away with all of that bad stuff here and now. Perhaps it'd be worth a try?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you would live long enough to find the answer that could do away with all of that bad stuff here and now. Perhaps it'd be worth a try?
Considering that would probably mean a perfect human race,I find that answer very unlikely I be found. And I believe that where we go after death and the rewards gained cannot be matched by whatever the world would have to offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading further into this thread, I probably wouldn't do it, based on my increasingly growing broodiness alone. If you had asked me this question maybe five or six years ago, I'd have been like "FUCK YEAH!!" about it because I didn't want any kids. But now that I'm nearing that age where most of my peers are starting to settle down and have families, I'm starting to really feel it. Like if it happened (not today hopefully!), I probably wouldn't fight it as much, and just accept it for what it is.

 

I'm also starting to understand why some women are just dead set on having their own biological child.rather than settle for adoption. I don't think there's anything that can replace the experience of knowing that a life is growing inside you. One that you created and that you'll get to see grow and flourish as both a part of you as well as being their own individual.

 

Definitely hormones. I think part of me would hate myself if I didn't at least get to experience just once something that my body was naturally designed to do.

 

P.S.- There you go, American Ristar. I may not want kids, but if it happens, I want just one. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'd take it.

Everyone assuming immortality would be boring, I recommend you read Neil Gaiman's Sandman. One of the few cases of immortality being shown as something desirable. I'd live and go through depressions and shitty periods and an awful life and a great life and get stuck for centuries in a rock slide and after 500 years have to record my brain in an external brain due to info overload and it'd be great. With luck I'd be there to see mankind go to the stars or kill itself, and I wouldn't want to miss either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with Hedgehogs Boost on the topic somewhat, albeit not for the exact same reasons. I think that if you believe in a Roddenbury-style future (Humanity is going to get better and better until everyone's nigh on perfect) then immortality is an enticing option, especially if everyone you cared for also got to be immortal with you.

 

But I don't believe that. I do believe that people are making progress in many areas but I'm skeptical that we could change our natures that far. Can morality be instilled in people if it is an innate thing? I wouldn't want to become immortal if life was what it is now. That may be partially because I'm having a bad time of it at the moment.

 

Could you imagine having severe depression forever? That sounds like hell. Literal hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else played the emotional and epic RPG called Lost Odyssey on 360?

4484d1202804060-lost-odyssey-ntsc-j-cove

Anyone who might consider immortality would surely think twice after playing this game. Although the immortals in the game can have children, it makes little difference.

You'll still be witness to hundreds of strangers, friends and loved ones inevitable end. In the game, the immortals hand no choice. I never got the sense that they were ever truly happy. But I still haven't gotten to the end of the story. It's a very long and challenging game.

 

Regardless, who is to say that your own loved ones, who you wish to also choose immortality, would be willing to make the same sacrifice. Or share your same view of life.

Surly there is also the possibility of the unlawful also becoming immortal. Or if one that was good in nature, struggling to cope with the major changes and eventually snapping all together.

 

I personally have no interest in children or living forever. Neither choice appeals to me, but living forever sounds like a nightmare that I could never possibly deal with. I don't have a death wish or anything. It's just that I've felt the pain of losing a loved one before, and to be immortal will guarantee that pain to return. Plus the human race constantly pissing me off, why would I want to lengthen my time with them??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the strangest feeling the government would issue an injunction to terminate the sperm, though... the point of the forced sterilisation is to control population growth. Women who give birth would probably be more fortunate since killing an infant is very, very different from nuking a sperm.

 

To me this all beginning to sounds like a selfish fascist scenario I don't want to live in.sleep.png

 

The only people to gain from this are the smart, physically strong, mentally strong, the rich and the elite. Everybody else is fucked. You wouldn't want immorality if you are incapable of the progressing job leader. 

 

I know you are going to reply and change the scenario more to make it look more positive but I still think that this concept is far from ideal and utopian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this all beginning to sounds like a selfish fascist scenario I don't want to live in.sleep.png

 

It's only fascist because we think of being able to reproduce as some inalienable right alongside freedom of speech, worship, etc. The government's not infringing on any of those latter ones, and society's built on the idea we forfeit some of our individual sovereignty for the greater good. We yield to the state our legal ability to murder someone who we suspect is guilty of something, don't we? This is no different. Society would become overpopulated if no one died, and so the paradigm has to change.

 

Presumably those who are physically weak or mentally weak would be able to improve themselves with the technology. If we can program nanites to repair damage as it occurs, why not program them to improve what's already there? This is where the love for naturalism comes in, but the natural order doesn't have internet, air conditioning, or hot dogs. Screw the natural order.

 

The "rich" argument is fallacious because I explicitly stated that the procedure is cost-effective for the purposes of this scenario, so everyone could get it. As for other elites... who's to say they even still exist? As technology advances, everything's bound to gradually become more automated, necessitating a greater amount of socioeconomic equality due to the perpetually growing throngs of unemployed.

 

But anyway.

 

My biggest concern is if the people who don't view immortality as natural would prevent others from taking it. It's okay if one wants to grow old and die, but if I don't want to, I'd like to be able to pursue the procedure. Besides, artificially restricting science rarely ends well.

 

As another point, I've been thinking. It's always said immortals see everyone they love grow old and die. Well... that happens already. Does your grandmother or pet's death perpetually depress you? No. You move on after a long enough time. And you form bonds with other people who you could very easily live to see die. It would be no different for an immortal; we'd just lose our own eventual end. Which only holds merit if you believe in an afterlife and wish to see those who passed away again. Otherwise, preserving yourself as long as possible is perfectly logical.

 

I mean, let's think about it. By the "Everyone you love will die and you will be sad forever" argument, you may as well attempt peaceful suicide at 70 rather than reaching 100 or 110. Why the arbitrary difference between growing to 120 versus 120,000,000?

 

My mother is going to die regardless if I take the immortality pill or not. If she takes the pill too, that's glorious, but if she doesn't... saddening, but I will get past it, just as I would get past it if I were mortal. The greatest argument against immortality is loneliness, and I sincerely doubt at least half the planet wouldn't take the pill.

Edited by Ogilvie Maurice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But some people can't handle that psychological stress for everyone, even more when it happens continously. It's one thing to see your parents and grandparents die, but it's another to make new friends after new friends after new friends because each one died before the others as you continued to live on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But some people can't handle that psychological stress for everyone, even more when it happens continously. It's one thing to see your parents and grandparents die, but it's another to make new friends after new friends after new friends because each one died before the others as you continued to live on.

 

How would we know this unless we are already immortal? The brain processes grief well enough, and we experience plenty of deaths in our lifetimes. We move on, I don't see why we couldn't do it with a longer lifespan.

 

The biggest problem with immortality would be companionship, but that's been solved. The world's oldest woman, as I remember, died one week after guests were no longer able to see her. I don't think that's entirely coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would a peaceful immortal and mortal world be able to co-exist? Knowing Human Nature this would lead to conflict. I would find it ironic the very thing people are striving for here would lead to our demise.

 

What about animals? Would it be moral and ethical to make them immortal? huh.png  

 

EDIT: Agh. I give up there is no way I can defend my argument. To continue would just be pissing in the wind. dry.png

Edited by BW199148

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.