Biological immortality

...Err, sorry, but I don't share your fascination of punishment and what truly count as good enough punishment.

It would hardly be the main argument for biological immortality, not be a long shot, but it's as valid a pro argument as your counter argument. Of course, the main pro argument would simply be that we talk about immortality here, and what more could we want?

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

...Even if I would accept your reasoning, most of dictators seem to die from old age except if they are crazy/stupid enough to provoke other countries. And that still wouldn't solve problem of powerful corrupt individuals being able to keep their power and control other people for eternity.

Immortality is kind of eternal state of stability in the world that constantly changes, people who would have been alive, say for 200 years would probably hold same values as people from 200 years ago whether people from present would have same values or not.(of course, it could create alternative that world would get stuck and ideologies and stuff never change again, but that sounds unlikely) People don't really change their ideologies often you know, giving them eternity of time would change nothing about that.

Also, I guess some people find immortality as "Eternity of time to fulfill your dreams". I find idea would be abhorrent as that could result in people never fulfilling their goals as they can "do it later" or eternity of misery of being unable to fulfill your goals because of lacking willpower. People who are able to fulfill their goals and dreams don't really need more time for it.

@Octo,

Let's stop for a moment and drop this "OH MY GOD SCIENCE!" bullshit.

What we'd have to do to fix a human society to make immortality work properly is quite likely impossible. It isn't a good thing. Humans—and our societies—aren't built to last.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Then don't be human. Don't have needs. Remove the concept of value, too.

Easier said than done. Also a big can of unintended consequences.

This post is pretty long. Summarized to the best of my ability, I'm saying: Culture would change a lot if everyone was the same age and nobody cared as much about a religious afterlife, capitalism would either collapse or turn into a rigid caste system if the people in charge never retired and let other people move up, and the level of government control required to make an immortal society that works (because of overpopulation and capitalism not working well) could easily lead to an immortal Stalin-like dictator taking over and making life hell for a really long time.

Assuming that biological immortality is possible (it sounds plausible enough) and all or most people would become immortal, we'd probably have to stop people from reproducing until we can start moving them to other planets or something, which would take awhile. We might figure out how to colonize planets and send people to them eventually, but we're nowhere near close yet. So it would be the same seven billion or so people on the same planet for quite a long time. A lot of major changes would happen, and we'd end up with a world that looks very little like the one we currently live in and probably wouldn't be very pleasant.

First of all, how our society is set up would have to change at a fundamental level if everyone was the same age. I'm guessing people would stop getting married, because if everyone lives for thousands of years, there's no way they could always stand to be around the same person. There would also be no kids or teenagers after the first twenty years. Without children or married couples, there would be no families, no elementary through highschool education, or anything like that. There would be no such thing as kid-friendly or family-friendly entertainment, so art and culture would either get more gross and vulgar, or more mature and sophisticated, or both. There would also be no such thing as old people, and no such thing as retirement.

Religion would probably either change or basically go away, since nobody would be concerned with the afterlife anymore. I think people might stop caring about what race people are and what country they're from and things like that, when they realize that they're all just people on the same planet, and they can define themselves instead of living by tradition. Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic, though.

The biggest thing, though, is that I can't see capitalism working anymore. Everyone right now is trying to move up in life, to get as far as they can before they die. Some people rise faster and farther than others, but everyone works to get raises, promotions, and respect. But when the CEO of a company will never retire or die, the people beneath him will never get promoted, so the people beneath them won't get promoted, all the way down to the guy who will be working in the mail-room at minimum wage for 800 years. People could still get college degrees and stuff, but if you can save every penny for 50 years and spend ten years on an advanced degree, and keep doing that until you have a phd in everything, and everyone else does the exact same thing, what will education mean? We'll still need farmers and Mc Donad's workers and janitors, and the people in charge will do their best to make sure power never gets shifted. Capitalism with no economic mobility is basically a caste system, and I don't see any way to preserve our current society without this happening.

And how would criminals be dealt with? For first degree murder, are they assigned life in prison? The death penalty seems harsh when you're talking about thousands of years. If they're let out of prison at some point, will they ever be able to reintegrate into society, or will they spend eternity being shunned for a crime they barely even remember after the first few hundred years?

We could also end up with some kind of communist government, but what if some kind of totalitarian dictator took over? If they never die and everyone's too scared to risk their otherwise endless lives by fighting them, everyone would live eternally in an absolute nightmare. It would be hell, basically.

Also, any kind of collapse of society would probably cause a reversion to the feudal system. The vast majority of humans would spend hundreds or thousands of years as slaves, and on top of that a lot of them would die from untreated injuries and diseases before things started to get better. I guess to some people eternal life would be worth all this, but I think I'd rather live out my relatively pleasant regular lifespan, and then pass the world on to the next generation, than spend eternity dealing with all the problems that would come up.

Dictators can fall without dying, and more importantly a dictatorship can already go on after the dictator dies.

The Roman Empire (and I mean specifically the Empire) lasted nearly 500 years. It lasted nearly 1500 if you count the Eastern Empire.

And then after it fell tons of monarchies popped up that didn't get weakened or deposed until VERY recently, in relative terms. I mean, the British monarchy has had power since 1066. Again, nearly a thousand years there, though I suppose it's technically only around 750 if you stop counting after it became a constitutional monarchy. But even today the British Monarchy still has some power.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

The problem isn't recall. Rote memorization is a poor way to acquire skills ( a good way to pass tests, I needn't explain how that is not the same ). The difficulty is the old knowledge getting in the way of the new.

Unlearning is the hardest thing to learn.

Only if my husband also gets to be immortal. Then? In a heartbeat! :D

Which is why I said "memory 'capacity'" instead of "ability to remember".

You'll have to explain the difference in the context of human recall, I'm afraid. But still, again: old habits and work-flow do not help one acquire new ones, but are a hindrance rather.

Thread hop: We're having enough trouble coping with the societal and environmental complications of extending our lifespans as much as we have. I...really, really don't think we're ready to live on the order of centuries, if for no other reason just yet than there'd be no place left for them to live.

edited 2nd Feb '12 7:12:26 PM by Pykrete

When you can address each and every one of the massive-scale and myriad problems immortality would create promptly, realistically, and without killing lots of people, I'll consider society-wide immortality to be a good idea.

Good luck.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Even a guy like me cannot see a whole society of empathy-less...things...going well.

Sign on for this After The End Fantasy RP.

Also, wouldn't immortality cause worse age racism at the beginning at least? Being old is part of the life, but western culture at least adores the youth so much that I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't like some people being old if you would can choose to do something about it

Also to everyone who claims being old is a bad thing, I think its proven that people who are optimistic about old age live happier and longer

edited 2nd Feb '12 8:54:51 PM by SpookyMask

I do not care.

I want to be immortal. I never ever want to cease to exist. Nor do I want to shrivel into an old shell able to be broken at any time.

Sign on for this After The End Fantasy RP.

Then exercise more

I already exercise quite a lot.

Sign on for this After The End Fantasy RP.

Simply put, society would collapse of immortality were obtained. So much of culture and religion is based around the assumption that life is finite. Not to mention that the means to become immortal would no doubt be highly expensive and thus reserved for only the 1%. In short, such technology would be more trouble than it's worth and is a concept best left unstudied.

"Roll for whores."

^^In that case its unlikely that you will be shriveled when you are old if you continue to do that I know one 70/80(forgot which) year old ex athlete guy who sometimes teaches at our school and hes rather lively.

That's as much a result of genetic health as of lifestyle, though.

Sure, old age has advantages — a better sense of perspective, more knowledge, more experience. But these advantages are just the result of, well, having lived for a long time — and of course, not all old people enjoy them.

On the other hand, compared to young adulthood, old age entails a weaker and more fragile body, a more sluggish mind, and of course an much higher risk of dementia.

Biological immortality would get us the best of both worlds: the health of a young adult, with the experience of an old person.

And I do not get why biological immortality should make us into amoral monsters. If anything, I think that it would have the opposite effect: it would force us to consider the long-term consequences of our decisions, and that generally leads to more responsible behaviour.

I mean, just to take the "tyrant" example: it is not unconceivable for a sufficiently skilled and ruthless person to stay on top of the heap for a few decades. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. But for a few thousands of years? No chance, sooner or later your adversaries will get lucky and will take you down. Much more rational to set up a system which will allow you to lose your position gracefully and with a minimum of risk, and that will give you a good chance to recover it later — and really, you are going to live for thousands of years, you have all the time you want to scheme your way back to power...

edited 2nd Feb '12 11:39:34 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Anyway, I won't really have to worry even if someone will figure out secrets of immorality. It won't really last because scoiety as we know it would collapse and maybe then it would be forgotten again

Really, you have to remember that pretty big part of human psyche is related to the fact that we will die. You have too optimistic idea of immortality.

And like I said, I find idea incredibly abhorrent.

edited 2nd Feb '12 11:48:13 PM by SpookyMask

I don't really consider biological "immortality" to be immortality at all, to be honest, just potentially indefinite longevity.

As of now, we all are incredibly callous about death. We have to be, or we would go mad with fear and rage. I mean, just think about it — your loved ones, the ones you care about, and yourself, gradually shriveling up into a shadow of themselves and dying.

How is that even remotely acceptable?

Once we do not have an "expiration date" anymore, we might perhaps be in a better position to see death as the abomination it is; and this, in turn, should make us more prone to compassion and sharing.

edited 3rd Feb '12 12:07:18 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Of course its acceptable, people have accepted that for long. Well, besides those shriveled people who thought being young would have been best and died unhappily because of their inability to accept it Also, western culture tends to glorify youth, asian and africam culture still has old people as pinnacle point in life as far as I know.

So yeah, only reason people would want to be immortal is 1) They are too afraid to accept death 2) They want to live to see aliens