Ethics of Immortality

To go off of a tangent in the Human Enhancement thread, should we be seeking immortality? Is it something that is desirable? Is it something achievable?

My thoughts on it is that we should be seeking it, even if, as an individual, one does not want it, so that those who do will have the option to have it. I believe it is desirable because, to put it frankly, I don't want to die. There will always be more stuff for me to do, and dying will keep me from doing that stuff. Finally, I don't know whether or not it is achievable, but it seems conceivable that it could be achievable, so I think it is worth a shot at attempting it. I feel like the best way to conquer death is to end all ways of dying, including, but not limited to, aging.

I should note that there were two other major threads on this issue, but I feel like this topic doesn't fit under either of them.

...

Edited by fanty on Sep 28th 2019 at 2:33:37 PM

So people have to die in the name of progress? No chance that people could, you know, change? Or society change without people dying?

I mean, sure older people tend to be more set in their ways than older people, but that does not mean they'll never change. In addition, each time a new generation comes along with new ideas, they will push society toward new things, if a bit slowly. They'll become set in more progressive ways than their parents, and, subsequently, the next generation will too, until, finally, with a combination of older people moving slowly, and younger people moving the center, society will progress. Sure it will be slower, but at least people won't die.

Also, this isn't just about us not dying. It's about our children not dying and our children's children not dying and our children's children's children not dying and so on.

Wow. We'll be building a LOT of spacestations in the future. I mean, really, dude, you don't see a problem with people staying indefinitely alive?

It's not even an ethical problem. There is just no way we could colonise the universe fast enough to comfortably house a population that had already been growing exponentially with people periodically dying.

With better healthcare, education, and birth control methods, birth rates go down, so, while there won't be anyone dying, there will be far fewer people getting born.

And then we get full stop societal stagnation.

Not necessarily. Old people, even now, do change, just slowly. Plus, I'm pretty sure that the inability to change has something to do with how the brain ages, and, since we'll be getting rid of aging, past adulthood, at least, that shouldn't be as much of a problem.

However, the drop in birth rate is going to happen regardless of whether or not we make ourselves immortal, and I don't fancy people dying very much, so I'd accept social stagnation if it meant no one would die anymore.

I'd take progress over what amounts to a very, very slow death. Forever is a very long time, and since older people are more likely to hold positions of power (especially when they get forever to build said position of power, and don't ever need to vacate their seat), it would mean you'd be stuck with the exact same world for a very long time.

You say life would last longer? I say it would be dragged out, like a television series that started with some good seasons, but really lost it's appeal around season 28.

No, thank you.

edited 3rd Jan '13 11:58:06 AM by Kayeka

Again, people change. Even if we have the same people in power, that does not necessitate that nothing will change. Plus, people will have practically infinite time to unseat the person, just as he or she had practically infinite time to gain his or her power. Power changes hands all the time without anyone dying.

No one would be forced to live forever. If you find living forever to be boring or undesirable, then go ahead and don't live forever, but the universe is a big place, infinitely big, in fact.

edited 3rd Jan '13 12:02:28 PM by deathpigeon

I don't want immortality for anyone. The human body is not built to life forever, at some point an immortal folk will feel disinterested by the rest of humanity.

And what of growth? I see you say a lot that we will colonize other planets at some point, but what if settling a planet is the biggest pain in the ass imaginable? Do we send the younger generations and tell them it's their problem?

What of people that don't want to leave Earth? Do they stay here and face apathy from the thousand years old elders that dont want to let go?

Without talking about the economy, where everyone can do their jobs forever, without ever leaving room to the future generations.

Death is an equalizer, let us keep it that way.

edited 3rd Jan '13 12:02:35 PM by QuestionMarc

And I'm still pretty sure immortality isn't possible. Even machines eventually break down, and transfer of consciousness has the big problem of "is that really the same person or jus a copy with the same memories and personalities".

My worst fear is that it's "maintenance-required" immortality.

Imagine sending some scrub generation on a faraway planet and for some reasons we can't sustain them anymore.

"Sorry! No more phlebotium for you! Enjoy withering away like your ancestors did!"

What of the people who are already working hard to ensure colonies? Would people like that not exist without death? I find it hard to believe that, and a lack of evidence for, an elimination getting rid of drive or people who would WANT to live on another planet.

But there would be older people who would want to leave too.

New people would mean that there would be more that would be needed to be built, which would mean more jobs.

Death is unnecessary. Death is something I consider to be morally wrong. I don't want anyone to die. Not me. Not those I care about. Not those I don't know. Not those I hate. If people wish to, then that's their prerogative, but no one should have to die.

Just because we cannot do so now does not mean we can never do so. I'm not sure if it's possible, but I sure as hell don't want to let possible get in the way of trying.

This seems somewhat relevant.

The situation is not even "we cannot do it at the moment". It's more "we haven't even able to make a machine that lasts forever, there's nothing that exists that lasts forever and there's no indication that it is possible that anything can last forever". Shouldn't we find a way to do that, prove that it is at least probable, before we start worrying ourselves with questions of immortality?

There are already dozens of other forms of transhumanist technologies emerging already (like the pill that allows you to forgo sleep, prosthetics that are stronger and faster than natural limbs). Let's focus on worrying about the implications of those instead.

edited 3rd Jan '13 12:42:23 PM by IraTheSquire

That misses my point. Haven't been able to does not necessarily mean never be able to. Once upon a time, we hadn't been able to make a machine that could do automatic calculations, nor were there any indication that it would be possible to do so. And, yet, we managed to make computers. Once upon a time, we hadn't been able to make flying machines, and there was no indication that it would be possible to. And, yet, we managed to make planes. We have barely scratched the surface of physics and chemistry and biology. We have found out a ton about all three fields, but there is still much we know nothing about. Once upon a time, the transhumanist things you describe would've been nothing more than pipedreams that we have no hope to achieve or indication of it being possible. There's no need to let the lack of ability now deter us from the possibility of doing it in the future.

Regardless of human mortality, the universe will end around us.

Have immortality if you wish, but I'll be happy with 60-100 years, and I certainly don't look forward to seeing humans that grows insane because of immortality.

That's something I seek to end as well.

And, as I said, I do not wish for immortality to be forced on people, merely that it should be an option.

Well forever is a bit impossible. Entropy must increase to the maximum. But the big problem is that we cannot really conceptualize all the changes that would happen. What is wealth worth when you have damn near infinity to acquire it? How do you handle government knowing that incumbents are basically never voted out of office? How do you ensure people don't procreate and therefore raise the population at an incredible rate?

I think the positives outweigh the issues, of course. For one, you don't die. You'd probably see longer-term planning on the part of everyone. Increased education as people can take the time to study whatever the hell they want. Space colonization would probably be on the table once people start thinking in terms of centuries ahead instead of decades.

I guess it's pretty clear from my statements in the other thread that I'm all in favor of this. I wouldn't force other people to keep living if they didn't want to, but I just don't want to leave it up to nature to decide when I don't get a tomorrow to enjoy.

Every time we get rid of a way to die or increase our life span, we get closer to immortality. In turn, it gives us more time to get rid of ways to die and increase our life span.

And you missed my point: we haven't been able to prove or disprove that anything physical in this universe can be permanent and stay the same for eternity. Talking about any form of immortality before that happens is like talking about running before you can walk.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't pursue immortality because it is not possible. I'm saying that talking about it without knowing whether it is even theoretically possible or not is putting the cart in front of a horse.

Ah, I see. I think it's important to discuss whether or not it's ethical, now. This way we'll be able to have worked out whether or not it is ethical to do it and (mostly) be in agreement by the time we actually achieve it, if we do end up achieving it.

To me, it's not putting the cart in front of the horse, it's discussing whether or not we should get the horse and cart before knowing if the store has either.

edited 3rd Jan '13 4:34:10 PM by deathpigeon

Which would be an utter waste of time and effort if it turns out that the store has neither.

And, if we don't talk about it now, we actually discover immortality is possible, but don't decide it's unethical until after we make it, we'll have wasted a bunch of research that could've gone into something else.

Plus, this is great fun.

edited 3rd Jan '13 4:41:24 PM by deathpigeon