34 replies to this topic

[Selena]

If science developed a treatment/gene therapy/whatever that allowed a person to live indefinitely, would you accept the offer or turn it down? With the following conditions in place:

* You wouldn't be alone - the rest of humanity would live indefinitely right along side you.

* You weren't outright immortal - being shot in the face would still kill you.

* For the sake of argument, assume there are no sketchy medical side effects from extending your lifespan.


Do you think this would be a beneficial thing that would benefit civilization in the long run? Or does it spit in the face of nature and play with being godlike too much? Would you even be able to handle it?

[Emiko]

I would be up for it. Question would be...would it be a one time thing? Or would you have to have "matinence"?

[Crimson Lego]

I would be totally against this. A lot of things in life involve risk; eventually, when we get to the point where humans are able to colonize other planets, nobody would go because they're too fearful for their own lifespan being ended by a completely accident. Civilization would go stagnant pretty quickly. Besides, there will probably be a point where every immortal person gets bored of life and kills themselves; then the human race would be extinct.


Those are my thoughts.

[Showsni]

Hm, I'd probably go for it. You've always go the option of killing yourself still if you want to, and if it avoids all the downsides of growing old - poor health, senility, arthritis and so on - then what's stopping you? Form an individual point of view, it seems all upside.

From a worldwide point of view, I can see how you might get problems with overcrowding, a stagnating civilisation, and so on. But that's the kind of things you'd need laws to regulate. (Well, the overcrowding problem, anyway). I'm not sure that civilisatin would stagnate, anyway - stuff like the overcrowding would give use more incentive to look skywards, and if people had more time to study different subjects we could get super experts in different fields.

I wonder if there'd be any religious backlash, though. From a Christian point of view, there are clear places in the Bible where God has stated that there is a limit on the human lifespan, and taken efforts to ensure that there is such a limit. (When humans are first kicked out of Eden, for instance, and a bit later it says 120 years is the cap, I think - Genesis 6:3. Seeking to remove this cap could be against God's will. It's not worth risking my immortal soul for a little longer on earth... So maybe I would have to turn it down.

[ShadowHope]

I would!

[LoreleiRaven]

As someone with necrophobia... I would have to say hell yes count me in.

I definitely see how it could cause over population, but at the same time... 1) I would want to be on a colonization ship or whatever, and 2) it might convince some people to not have kids while being so young and to not have so many...

Yeah, a lot of laws would have to change to help keep everything under control. And people with strong religious views would probably fight it very hard. But I am thinking something like this, coupled with space travel and/or colonization has the potential to create a lot more jobs for people out there, and maybe make conditions here on earth a little better as well.

[Khallos]

We'd adapt to longer lifetimes as we've adapted to so many things before....besides for an indefinite amount of time elven style immortality would only be for the few.

[J-Roc]

Hmm, my natural instinct would be to say no but since you said there would be no side effects or negatives to draw from this I guess it would be more foolish to say no. I do think that whenever we do get to the point where we think we have the indefinite lifespan that nature will find a way to keep the balance and still keep killing us, whether or not that means apocalypse remains to be seen, I guess.

I bet they will only let the richest of the rich and Einsteins etc. have it, though, we`re already overpopulated as it is.

[Steel Samurai]

I'd take it. Assuming indefinite youth came with it.

[LoreleiRaven]

I do think that whenever we do get to the point where we think we have the indefinite lifespan that nature will find a way to keep the balance and still keep killing us, whether or not that means apocalypse remains to be seen, I guess.

Survival of the fittest at its finest! People will believe they are indestructable (if no one explains to them that they aren't)... And they will go out and do crazier reckless shit that ends up in said death. There are of course still natural disasters, accidents, other illnesses that may not be cured by having an indefinite lifespan...

And of course the fact that at first, there probably won't be a lot of people out there that could afford to have the treatment...

Edit: ^^^ also a big YES to what Steel said...

Edited by Jester's Dream, 11 March 2012 - 05:29 PM.

[Crimson Lego]

Thought this seemed sort of relevant, while completely fictitious.


http://en.wikipedia....The_Last_Answer

[JRPomazon]

In response to Leo's fictitious link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Repent,_Harlequin!%22_Said_the_Ticktockman

You can also read it for free with Google: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:BF48cLrCIAIJ:compositionawebb.pbworks.com/f/%255C%27Repent,%2BHarlequin!%255C%27%2BSaid%2Bthe%2BTicktockman%2Bby%2BHarlan%2BEllison.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgcKYUvh79DzFpBeQLxjBMqrIcVrCMcPUUD6euXzUeVeOvWAZqxGuITA40X6tpdG8sW9k5coSAyxQTChIFhM2eMvBKAt_DJ2BqrE-QcKt5dIK2-MKOleZRHmNMqkP8oP3jk1Icw&sig=AHIEtbSSYLBppQvC0APWwbo5pkQCl0PQOw

Anyway, the idea of having an indefinite lifespan comes with two very different opinions, both have which been mentioned. Life is static, always changing and always growing in different ways. The possibilities for humanity are endless as each new generation comes and goes working off the successes and failures from the past. It is how we have become what it is we are today (for better or worse). To remove that constant state of change and have everyone live forever could very well end this progress and humanity would grow stagnant. We would never die, but we would grow exhausted after a while with the prospect of never dying or never changing.

To quote Steve Jobs on the matter:

Death is the destination we all share, no one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be because death is very likely the single best invention of life.

And you can bet that if somehow the world achieved some sort of immortality, someone would come up with the idea of how to regulate it or worse, profit from it.

But we all know what death means, it means change (whether it's desired or not). When we grow old, we become shadows of the people we might have been or stay roughly the same. A bodily illness can take away so much from us that our quality of life is threatened with each passing day. I have know personally to have elder family members live the last days of their lives compromised in a hospital room with a plethora of tubes and machines connecting to their bodies. No one wants this for themselves, at least I don't. So if we were to make the advances necessary, I would prefer to live a long, full life where the quality of my health and well being can remain constant from start to finish. That I think is really the only thing a person could ask for.

[Ikiosho]

I don't want to live forever, religion or not. My answer is indefinitely no.

[Elvenlord]

I'd take it. Easily. There's so much to know and see. And if, for whatever reason, something goes wrong, there's always suicide.

[JRPomazon]

I'd take it. Easily. There's so much to know and see. And if, for whatever reason, something goes wrong, there's always suicide.

I'm hoping you aren't suggesting that suicide is a decision one makes easily or on some whim. Regardless of immortality that's a choice that shouldn't be made lightly of.

[Elvenlord]

You would be right to hope. Simply stating it's a choice doesn't at all imply anything about how lightly it should or should not be made. This is coming from someone who struggled with that choice for several years. I know what it's like.

[Egann]

Well...infinite lifespan would definitely be useful for interstellar travel, but I'm sure you've already thought of that.


There are quite a few factors we need to discuss about this one because it features FUNDAMENTAL economic and social changes. Particularly economic.

Let's say that, for the sake of argument, your average human lifespan is 100,000 years, as opposed to 100. You now have 1,000 times the time to accumulate wealth.

Perspective: some of the higher end hobbyists will spend several thousand dollars on a model rocket. Add 3 zeros and you have $1,000,000 per rocket...which is about 300K shy of THE SPACE SHUTTLE'S average budget per launch. Forget the timescale; the amount of wealth involved here is mind-boggling; space elevators, terraforming planets, adding habitable planetary rings, these can all be run off pocket-change.

And bear in mind I'm underestimating things here; most people earn more later on in their careers; I just assume it's flat.


Socially, we now go from having about 20 years to go through high school and college to...at least 100. Proportionately, the math says 20,000 years, but I'm not buying that. After about 1,000 years you're talking about learning almost everything every branch of human knowledge has to offer at a slow, relaxed, methodical pace. Even part-timing with employment, by 20,000 you're investing a lot into education and getting practically no skills in return.


That's it for the good things. Let's look at the bad things.

No generational displacement. One of the major engines which keeps human culture dynamic is that our eldest constantly die and are replaced with younger generations who have a knack for their own time, technology, et c. Without this, with the elderly constantly present, there is an ongoing risk of stagnation. This means several things.

1) Geometric population growth is a MUST to keep the bulk of the population young and aware of the present, not remiscing about the past
2) Individuals must constantly look to challenge themselves and learn about changes in their world to adapt
3) Seniority systems will go away.

Also, I have a nagging suspicion that most people won't be able to USE 100,000 years of life. 1000 years would probably be good, but 100,000 is an awful long time to collect crazy or forget things. How long would human memories last, anyway? Maybe I should start keeping a diary. And by the time I die my life will fill 2,000 volumes.


All in all, I'm all for living as long as possible. It's not that I dislike death, but that I have a lot of things to do while I'm alive, and I'd love more time to do it in. More to the point, humanity would be better for it, anyway. True, some of the changes would create some UNBELIEVABLE upheavals as human culture adjusts to such monumental shifts, but I think it would be worth it.

[Masamune]

I'd take it. But I wouldn't want or plan to live forever. But maybe tack on an extra century onto my lifespan? Hell yeah.

[Kisseena]

I wouldn't wanna do it. For one, overpopulation would happen. Who knows if there will be somewhere else for us to live? That can't be a possible choice because it might not even happen, honestly.

Religion also comes into a factor for my decision, too. With what I believe, after I die & go to heaven and all the other stuff happens, not only will my soul live forever, but I'll get to see all of the other things I didn't get to see when I was alive on Earth. This is just what I believe, and I'm not trying to force it upon anyone. So I just kind of ask that you don't disrespect it in any way. Not that I think most of you will... But just in case. >.>

Plus, if you age and become old and stuff, that's a handicap and restriction on things you can do anyways. I don't wanna be old for a majority of my life. But that's just what I think.

Edited by Princess Bitey, 13 March 2012 - 01:58 AM.

[Hana-Nezumi]

I would take it... but only live for like 500 years max, then killing myself off. Because what's the point of being immortal if everyone else is? Psh.

[Twinrova]

I'd take it. But I wouldn't want or plan to live forever. But maybe tack on an extra century onto my lifespan? Hell yeah.

Yeah, same here. Also only if I get to be young the whole time. >_>

[SOAP]

This pretty much sums up my opinions on immortality.

[Egann]

This pretty much sums up my opinions on immortality.

Eh. While I share the sentiment that indefinite lifetime may outrun its usefulness, I find the idea of hitting that ceiling at 105 to be...laughable. There's an unverified report of a Vietnamese woman who lived into her 160's, and there's incontrovertible proof that Jean Calment lived to 122 and change. While it's certainly possible people could give up if they were in stressful environments, in more controlled environments people WITHOUT augmentation live over a century already.

Put another way, whenever you domesticate an animal, it's life tends to increase by at least a factor of three. In fact, honey bees in a colony will work themselves to death in a few weeks, but separated from colonies, they can live for years. Housecats? Three to five years for ferals facing outdoor stresses. Upwards of twenty for indoor domesticated cats. That ratio even holds true for big cats. I have a nagging suspicion looking at those numbers that stress is one of the major causes of aging.

Now apply this logic to humans; people have, since antiquity, lived about 70-75 years. Three times that number, and you come up with an un-augmented lifetime length of...200 years and change. That's the lifetime your ordinary human has the potential to live to.

[Selena]

To the people pointing out overpopulation: What if this treatment only becomes available during the age of space colonization, when people can spread out on multiple planets? If you live indefinitely, you can survive trips not only to the outer solar system, but to other stars.

[Crimson Lego]

True, but boredom, regardless of the indefinite lifespan, might stop them from willing to sit for several years just to get to a planet.



If hyperdrives were developed, that would be another story. But then there would be the risk of dying by ridiculous accident while colonizing a world or something.

[Twinrova]

As long as there is space internet in space then I would totally go into space.


For space internet.

In space.









Spaaaaace.

[Crimson Lego]

*the ship explodes*

[SOAP]

This pretty much sums up my opinions on immortality.

Eh. While I share the sentiment that indefinite lifetime may outrun its usefulness, I find the idea of hitting that ceiling at 105 to be...laughable. There's an unverified report of a Vietnamese woman who lived into her 160's, and there's incontrovertible proof that Jean Calment lived to 122 and change. While it's certainly possible people could give up if they were in stressful environments, in more controlled environments people WITHOUT augmentation live over a century already.

Put another way, whenever you domesticate an animal, it's life tends to increase by at least a factor of three. In fact, honey bees in a colony will work themselves to death in a few weeks, but separated from colonies, they can live for years. Housecats? Three to five years for ferals facing outdoor stresses. Upwards of twenty for indoor domesticated cats. That ratio even holds true for big cats. I have a nagging suspicion looking at those numbers that stress is one of the major causes of aging.

Now apply this logic to humans; people have, since antiquity, lived about 70-75 years. Three times that number, and you come up with an un-augmented lifetime length of...200 years and change. That's the lifetime your ordinary human has the potential to live to.

I was referring more to the idea that any augmentation probably would be abused in a similar matter creating a have and have-not society. Like the guy said "Everyone can't be immortal. Where would we put them all?" If abused, it could turn out to be social class issue more than an overpopulation issue. If the bridge between rich and poor was bad now, imagine if the rich could never die, or at least live a whole heck of a lot longer than the average person. They just sit there and accumulate more and more wealth and knowlege while the young and poorer would never ever stand a chance. It would literally be like gods living amongst men. Even if immortality was available to everyone, there'd probably be ways those in power would make sure they don't have to share that power by making sure the young and the poor die young and poor.

105 seemed young to me too.

Edit: Actually now that I think of it, 105 or even 150 is the perfect lifespan. Or maybe 200. Yeah that's already an attainable lifespan but what if we could stay younger longer in our natural lifespans? 100 years and most of us reach our physical peak at a quarter of that time while it's all downhill for the remaining three? That seems like a waste. What if we could stay at our peaks for another 50 years or more and the remaining 25 or less is where we start aging. We'd get more done and the knowledge we've accumulated in that time could be put to better use instead of wasting all that pining about how "Oh if I was twenty something again!" or "If I knew then what I know now." I'll be more for a longer lasting youth more than a longer lifespan. 200 seems good too but after 300 I think immortality would just become useless and begging to invite abuse and social conflict. With a longer lasting youth though along with a definite lifespan, perhaps death wouldn't be as a sad or scary but a welcoming end to a fully lived life?

Edit Edit:

As long as there is space internet in space then I would totally go into space.


For space internet.

In space.









Spaaaaace.

O:

This is now officially going to be my facebook status update....

Edited by SOAP, 14 March 2012 - 02:26 AM.

[Egann]

. From a Christian point of view, there are clear places in the Bible where God has stated that there is a limit on the human lifespan, and taken efforts to ensure that there is such a limit. (When humans are first kicked out of Eden, for instance, and a bit later it says 120 years is the cap, I think - Genesis 6:3. Seeking to remove this cap could be against God's will. It's not worth risking my immortal soul for a little longer on earth... So maybe I would have to turn it down.

Parenthetically, there's a reference in Isaiah 65: 20 which...well, read it for yourself. "No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; for the child shall die one hundred years old." The oldest a child can be in Hebrew culture is 12, so just ballparking it that says life expectancy is at least 700 years, and quite possibly many times more than that. Traditionally this "refreshed" heavens and earth is equated with the new heavens and earth at the end of Revelation, but that's obviously not possible because in the Revelations one there won't BE death. [/religious discussion]

I was referring more to the idea that any augmentation probably would be abused in a similar matter creating a have and have-not society. Like the guy said "Everyone can't be immortal. Where would we put them all?" If abused, it could turn out to be social class issue more than an overpopulation issue. If the bridge between rich and poor was bad now, imagine if the rich could never die, or at least live a whole heck of a lot longer than the average person.

To a certain extent that was what I was trying to say earlier, without the class struggle twist. That said, your logic is a series of straight line projections which...probably won't be accurate, at least in the long run. Sure, therapy will START with the rich because they can afford the treatment, but give the technology a generation or two to develop, the price will drop, and long-life shots will be done in the same breath as childhood immunizations (read: done on everyone practically automatically).

I've said elsewhere that I think overpopulation is a misnomer, and I stand by that. What is "overpopulated" is entirely dependent on what technology and infrastructure you assume for your projections. IF we were a society of hunter-gatherers, then 2 billion people worldwide would be egrigiously overpopulated. Conversely, if we had international maglev trains and used nothing but 3 growing-season greenhouses for agriculture (which IS doable, if impractically expensive at the moment) the earth could handle upwards of 30.

If you project population growth while holding economic activity still, you're comparing apples and oranges. That's pretty much what overpopulation boils down to.

About your "optimum lifetime," I'd say that's a rather pessimistic way of thinking about things. Perhaps that's the way you think of things now, but if your life (not you personally: I mean this in a broader, cultural sense) were more pleasant and less stressful, do you really think you'd draw the same line? I doubt it. And if your friends and children were living equally long, I'd doubt you'd even think about it.

[Selena]

Although a bit off topic:

Put another way, whenever you domesticate an animal, it's life tends to increase by at least a factor of three. In fact, honey bees in a colony will work themselves to death in a few weeks, but separated from colonies, they can live for years. Housecats? Three to five years for ferals facing outdoor stresses. Upwards of twenty for indoor domesticated cats. That ratio even holds true for big cats. I have a nagging suspicion looking at those numbers that stress is one of the major causes of aging.

Other predators, natural hazards, and shotguns to the face (especially with the poached big cats) are sort of big factors.

Stress? Modern hunter-gatherers have significantly fewer working hours, and more relaxation hours, than 'typical' humans do. The modern human lifestyle is entirely fueled by stress. From grade school homework to college finals, office deadlines, keeping up on the mortgage, paying off uni debt, disciplining the hellspawn, sending those hellspawn to school, funding retirement, and even arranging your own funeral before you finally kick the bucket. Modern life is constant stress. "Wild" counterparts -- both human and animal -- have better base-level health due to exercise, relaxation, and the lack of empty calorie junk food. They just die sooner due to their environment and lack of medical attention when something bad happens. Domesticated humans and animals may live longer, but seldom reach the same levels of physical or mental health.

But I think expanding our lifespan could actually help with that. It's not that the modern lifestyle is inherently bad - it's that we're trying to do too much in so little time. We spend the first quarter of our lives - and the years of our best physical health - locked up in school pulling all nighters and eating top ramen. We spend our middle years locked in a cubicle stressing out over company deadlines so we can make ends meet... or even spend a lot of that period simply looking for a proper full-time job. We spend our twilight years stressing out about retirement and whether we can even afford it or not, because bam, it's suddenly there faster than we anticipated.

People revert back to primitive behavior -- like hunting or backpacking -- to relax.

By stretching things out, we might not feel like we're in such a damn rush all the time, reducing stress levels.