Immortality, who wants to live forever?

[HoopyFrood]

Heh, thanks Ship.

[Paige Turner]

Maybe we could all be renewed, and come back as babies!

Quick! To Carousel!

[ScottSF]

At the very least I would want to live 10,000 years but I bet I could do more. We are talking about living without aging here. I'm creative and I believe I would always find something new to learn and discover or even observe. Now if we really got interstellar travel down then 10,000 years wouldn't be nearly enough. I think I would take a 5 million year pill with an option to take another one when times up.

A great read on extended live spans is John Varley's Steel Beach.

[HoopyFrood]

Hmm...give me a situation like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and I might be up for taking on a few more thousand years. With the whole Universe to explore, I'd definitely need a fair few centuries. But I still think that ultimately life would get weary. Extended life is all well and good, but immortality...no, I think that would be too much.

[Marky Lazer]

I am immortal, already.

[Tau Zero]

An interesting topic. But i'm all for life; now and ever. Hand me the pill, there is too much to see and do that a thousand years woudn't fill. Immortality means that one will not die; not cannot die. If, after a few dozen millenia, i'm tired of life, i'm sure a few sticks of dynomite to the head will end that issue.

The overpopulation issue is, of course, a very valid one. I think the simple solution is to have the pill not only make you immortal, but sterile too. Yes, you too can live forever, but you're not reproducing!

A lot of this discussion is specualtive (of course), but a clue to human reaction is to look at people who live over 100. A saw on TV a report of a study done on these people, looking for unique characteristics. Now here are people who have outlived friends and family on many occasions, but you know what they were all found to have? A humorous disposition towards life and themselves. The theory that seeing friends and family all die off would be intolerable does not hold true with those actually experiencing it. Also look at people who work fields (like doctors and police) that deal with death and misery on a regular, continuing basis. They too, develop a strong sense of humor, although it can be pretty strange to those not used to it.

I think humans are stronger than you're giving them credit for. I think many people may face hurdles in dealing with immortality at some point, but overall, i think humanity will do just fine.

Just count me in!

[Pointfinder]

There's nothing new I can add here. Everyone has hit on the main points. I would still opt for the pill regardless of the consequences and for those of you who claim you wouldn't I'm not sure I believe all of you, no, infact I do not believe you because I know that self preservation is an ingrained human trait, if it were not then you most likely would alredy be dead. There are so many ways to loose your life just through simple daily activities. We spend a great deal of our time each day simply keeping ourselves out of life threatening situations (do you really want to cross the street when there is a green light?). It is this same human trait that would cause most of us to opt for the pill when the doc tells you you have only 6 mos to live.

One last thing, please people, do not tell me that I would get bored after 200 yrs or whatever number you assign, I would not! Maybe you would, but dont speak for others.

[j. d. worthington]

TZ -- I agree, there are those who do develop that outlook; they are, however, the exceptions, if you'll look at the numbers. And I've seen far too many older people who lost all interest in life as the last of the relatives of their generation died off -- they felt more and more alienated from the world around them -- and that's something that's not been addressed here. If we freeze at a certain age, there will be no need for advancements, for changes. People in general tend to like what is comfortable and familiar, with only minimal changes. Too much change tends to make a person feel more and more displaced, in most cases. (As I said, there may be the very rare exceptions, but they are very, very rare indeed!) So, if only some choose immortality then yes, the species will continue to "progress", but those who have chosen immortality will be more and more out of touch with those around them, and that gets awful lonely after a while for most people. Also, the scientific evidence indicates that yes, our capacity of memory is finite, and that it's the newer memories that are most likely to be faulty or dropped altogether. This would make this an even bigger problem the longer you live.

No, I gave this a lot of thought when I was quite young, actually, figuring (from some odd thing I picked up in my head as a kid) that such might be a possibility during my lifetime. And I decided, after a lot of thought, that I'd opt out. I've looked at the idea off and on since, and I'd still opt out. Longevity, perhaps (though I'd have to be assured of it being a longevity where I wasn't going to spend the whole thing starving, or in horrendous pain, etc.) ... but the thought of immortality appalls me (for me; anyone who wants to take it is welcome to it, but I'll pass).

Also, TZ -- you're immortal, and that means you're sterile. Can you imagine a world without children at all? Would you truly want to live in a world where they simply don't exist any longer? Having children is one of the greatest of joys for many people ... and rightly so. Watching a child grow, develop their own personality, watching the development of that person, is a fascinating thing, nothing can compare to it. For those who chose immortality, that would never be an option.

And I seriously doubt the premise that we'd learn to have a longer-range view. As our lifespans have increased over the last 150 years, have we done so? No. Quite the reverse, actually. It was quite common for people to think of their posterity when their lifespans were between 40 and 60 years. Now, very few take such a view. It used to be quite common for people to devise long-term goals connected with such, even generational plans; now the majority are concerned almost entirely with instant gratification. So I'm afraid that idea simply doesn't hold up against real experience, either.

I don't want a painful death, but death itself long since ceased to frighten me. Oblivion is nothing to be afraid of ... there's no pain, no pleasure, you don't exist -- period. As has been argued, we had it before we were born, why should we complain because we will have it again? I'd rather not die right this moment -- there are things I'd like to do and see -- but if it happens, so what? I won't be there to regret it, to feel robbed or cheated, or anything. The biochemicoelectrical energy that makes up my personality will be dispersed into other forms, but "I" will no longer exist in any form. I'm sorry, but what's to fear in that? No, immortality is simply not an option I'd care for, either here or "hereafter".

[andrew.v.spencer]

JD have you taken a glum pill today. You'd choose oblivion, nothingness, over existence?

As to no children? Well I could quite easily deal with that. I avoid them anyway. They'd be a replacement rate for children anyway, disease and accident would still get people.

And yes very old folk often feel it's time to go, their generation is dead and they themselves often live in pain, discomfot and physical decay. Clearly none of that would be the case with the pill. I suspect a 100 year old with the body of a thirty year old would have a very different view to a 100 year old, who looks that age.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by andrew.v.spencer

JD have you taken a glum pill today. You'd choose oblivion, nothingness, over existence?

LOL. No, not quite. My point though, is that, after a certain period (which would likely vary considerably from individual to individual), existence itself would become a burden ... for all the reasons listed above, plus others I've not discussed. As I said, I've given this a lot of thought over the years (both as a possibility in the real world, and for fictional purposes).

As to no children? Well I could quite easily deal with that. I avoid them anyway. They'd be a replacement rate for children anyway, disease and accident would still get people.

On that, I was replying to TZ's positing that taking the pill would make you sterile. Ergo -- no more children, for you or anyone else who took the pill. And you may avoid them anyway (many do, including myself in general) ... but can you truly imagine a society without children? Children represent so many things to so many people, and are in general so important to the development of a society, that even reducing them to necessary replacements would have a very damaging effect on that society's psychological makeup. Plus there's the simple fact that, as people store up more experience, they tend to become more concretized in their thinking, thus less and less innovation -- which is one of the important elements about children and "new blood". Without them, the species would stagnate. The individual may be able to get along without them just fine. But the species ... no. And even among individuals, the vast majority have a desire to have children, and that's built-in by our entire history biologically, not something that could eradicated (or even seriously modified) any too easily. Would those people care to live with that void eating at them unconsciously day in and day out? I think you'd find that the majority of the human race would not be willing to give up the chance to have children at some point in their lives.

And yes very old folk often feel it's time to go, their generation is dead and they themselves often live in pain, discomfot and physical decay. Clearly none of that would be the case with the pill. I suspect a 100 year old with the body of a thirty year old would have a very different view to a 100 year old, who looks that age.

Not necessarily. Again, this is partly individual personalities. And it depends on how intensely one becomes attached to those one loves, how much one is able to cope with their deaths. I've known people it didn't seem to affect at all ... and others who still felt it keenly after 40 years and more. I went through a loss myself a very long time ago, that still hits me very hard now and again ... to carry that feeling through the centuries? From my readings in psychology (and my experience dealing with psychologists, psychiatrists, etc., who deal with this sort of thing daily), I don't think many would be able to cope with that and remain emotionally accessible to others. They would, perforce become more distant as a matter of self-protection... or they'd find themselves desiring suicide more and more, whether or no they took that option. And this is something that reaches across the age boundaries.

To return to your original here: As I've stated, I'd like to live longer (a century or two more, anyway), probably, as long as I was able to use it in such a way as to profit by it; but more than that, I simply wouldn't care for. There are too many psychological factors that tend to wear on people as they experience more of life, and those just cannot be eradicated by being "frozen" at a particular age, with the robust health of that age, indefinitely. Their effects may indeed be lessened, even lessened quite a bit ... but they're incremental, and they don't go away.

And as for exploring the galaxy (or other galaxies, the universe, etc.) -- while I agree that would be an incredible adventure, human irascibility proves that people cannot be cooped up in such a confined space (as a ship, even a very large, miles-long/wide ship) for such an extended period without eruptions of violence. It simply can't happen. Try going through a six-month period with someone you really care about without getting into an argument, without feeling petty resentments build. Now multiply that by however many people you have in such a mission, and then go exponentially for the various webs of interactions, and you'll soon see that no group of people (as we are now -- perhaps we'll evolve into something different, or find a workable psychology for dealing with such things, but I doubt it) could stand each other for that long ... and it's not a situation where one can pack up one's bags and leave. You're stuck there, permanently. Eventually, someone's going to pull out the knives ... literally. And as for an individual making such a trip alone ... try going six months to a year without being around another human being. We simply wouldn't survive sanely. We're just not put together that way.

I'm not being a pessimist here, but I am being a realist. Immortality sounds nice, at first blush, but the more one thinks about it without rose-colored vision, just looking at the realities of life added into the bargain, the less attractive it becomes. An eternity of this? As I said, there may be the rare individual who could not only stand it, but enjoy it. However, I think that, if you really give it long and serious thought, that likelihood diminishes considerably. We're fighting against our entire evolutionary history here, and all the things it's instilled in us on a cellular and instinctive level, and that's just something you can't overcome with any little green pill.

So, in comparison with existence on the level of immortality ... yes, I'd definitely choose oblivion. Because immortality is something I know full well I could stand neither together with someone (nor the entire human race) nor alone. I agree with Hoopy here. I don't think most people have any really deep appreciation of what the word means... a true conceptual feeling for such a span of time. A lifetime -- even a very long lifetime of 150 years or better ... yes. Eternity? No.

[Tau Zero]

JD,

Your points are good, but i think they're your perceptions, not the reality you claim since immortality doesn't occur.

As in most circumstances, people make their own "hell" or "heaven." I've seen people living in terrific places bemoaning the fact that they have to live there and i've seen people live in lousy places and finding it wonderful. My point here is the concept of the self-fulfilling prophesy. If you expect it to be bad, it will be bad.

You state that existance would become a burden. That death is the goad to grow. There's nothing to support this view. I certainly don't accomplish the things i've done because death lurks in my future.

As for a world without children, i never meant to imply that! That would be a horror. Not to have any children left in the world, would mean that everyone would have to take the pill before puberty; i never meant that. Many people mentioned that being around 30 years old is a great age to be immortal. Most of the people i know have children by 30. Immortality is voluntary, so have and raise your kids, and when you're done and want to live forever, take the pill. The population would grow as it does now, but we wouldn't have immortals reproducing for millenia.

Immortality can work for anyone who sees something left to do. There is so much i want do that i couldn't estimate the number of millenia it would take. There is just so much to do out there and it takes so long to be great at all of them.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Tau Zero

JD,

Your points are good, but i think they're your perceptions, not the reality you claim since immortality doesn't occur.

Eh? Perhaps there's been a miscommunication, and I wasn't clear in my phrasing. The reality I refer to is the findings of psychology/psychiatry and the physiology of the brain -- as far as I know, no, there isn't anyplace immortality has taken place (then again..... ). All the indications are that the brain really does have a limited capacity for storing memories and experiences, and that, the closer one comes to that limit, the more partial and spotty the memories become, finally getting to a point where they aren't retained at all. And, again, the psychological factors enter in here, as well, in that, as experiences become repeatable, they begin to lose their novelty-value, and can (and eventually do) become dull, even feeling like a punishment eventually. Anything will take on that cast given long enough, no matter what it is. That's the way our psychology works. An eternity of experience (as opposed to a prolonged existence) would inevitably have that effect, as there's only a limited amount of experience that the brain would be able to take in, and the more experiences, the more one begins to see similarities to other experiences, as well, until eventually (though in exploring the universe, etc., this might take a tremendously long time) they simply become too similar, and lack enough contrast to excite interest. As I say, there may be the very rare exceptions, but look at the figures, and you'll find this is true for the vast majority of human beings.

As in most circumstances, people make their own "hell" or "heaven." I've seen people living in terrific places bemoaning the fact that they have to live there and i've seen people live in lousy places and finding it wonderful. My point here is the concept of the self-fulfilling prophesy. If you expect it to be bad, it will be bad.

There's certainly a fair amount of truth to this. People can turn a paradise into hell in their own mind, and vice versa (within limits, of course, especially for the latter -- if you're in a plague zone, or surrounded by death and destruction on a massive scale, the only way to turn that into a pleasant place is by use of some form of severe denial of reality, becoming delusional; but of course those are the very, very extremes). But there comes a point where the effects of the pain around you cannot be fended off without recourse to something of that sort, as the world situation worsens (which it is likely to do, as people will continue to breed, and with immortality, you'd end up with even worse population problems, or enforced sterility -- neither of which is a desirable outcome).

You state that existance would become a burden. That death is the goad to grow. There's nothing to support this view. I certainly don't accomplish the things i've done because death lurks in my future.

Again, this is supported by an enormous amount of research in psychology. It is almost never on a conscious level, granted; but that goad is there, nonetheless, as death permeates our worldview, however much we shut our eyes to it ... we're aware of it from a very early age, and we're surrounded with it every day -- the newscasts, friends and family members that die, or hearing about it from neighbors, friends, schoolmates, etc., etc., etc. It isn't a negative thing, as it prompts us to strive to improve things in so many areas, from medicine (where it most certainly is the major incentive -- the desire to conquer death and the illnesses that lead to it) to exploration (perhaps even to the stars), for lebensraum because of overcrowding and the danger of starvation, etc. It, along with the sexual instinct (which, it is often argued, is closely linked to this on the most basic level as the instinct for survival, even if only through progeny) powers vast amounts of what we do: Improvements in our hygiene, improvements in our foods and food preservation.... all stem from a desire to prolong life ... and what is that but a fear of its opposite?

As for the "world without children" -- I apologize. I misread your intent on that post. However, there we run (once again) into the problems with population pressure, and the impact of that on resources, and the social impact of that, including increasingly draconian measures concerning childbearing and child-rearing.

There's also another aspect that's not been discussed. I see a lot of talk about doing the things we want to do, whether it be exploring nature, travel, going to see other worlds, etc. ... but how is that to be financed individually? Doesn't that mean continuing to work indefinitely? While there may be quite a few who truly enjoy their jobs, anyone out there think that they'd like to stick with that job forever? And if not ... again, you've got the competition growing as the population grows (and while immortality may be voluntary, even if it has disastrous effects as I predict, people will take the chance, and the population will continue to skyrocket). Not to mention the fact that automation will (even if we stopped having children today) increase at least for a good while, and that's going to eliminate more and more ways to earn an income, as the machines become better able to provide any goods or services than people, more quickly and efficiently and without all the necessary benefits packages.

Again, I stress that I am not denying the attractions of immortality; but I am arguing from a more realistic viewpoint based not on the existence of immortality, but extrapolating the effects from the known psychological/emotional makeup of the majority of human beings, and our history, and how very poorly we are equipped emotionally to deal with even mild boredom, let alone the kind that most people would experience with immortality. Let's face it, the vast majority of people are extremely limited in imagination, even in being able to entertain themselves (partially the fault of lack of nurturing that quality in our educational system and often at home, but also largely because the majority simply lack the ability to stretch their imaginations, and are frankly disinclined to try) ... can you imagine what would happen with that problem being compounded by an eternity of boredom?

I am sure that there are strong-enough-minded individuals to enjoy an immensely prolonged lifespan, if they are allowed to live it freely. But I'm afraid that anyone would eventually reach a limit on this, if we're talking true immortality. (Longevity is another thing.) And in the meantime, we aren't isolates; we interact with our societies, and that interaction would play an enormous role in how enjoyable such a prospect would or would not be.

Has anyone thought about this aspect of it: All the nations we know now are relatively young, from the point of view of our existence as human beings. Even the oldest is only a few thousand years in age. The vast majority are considerably younger. America is, of course, only roughly two centuries in age (three-and-a-half, if you go back to the landing at Plymouth, for the current predominant culture). Now -- how much longer will any of these nations be around? Some will not last out the century. Most will not last the next thousand years. Nations are, by and large, precariously stable things. While it might be fascinating to watch the changes, how many will care to live through the changes, in the thick of them ... especially if their nation is one that no longer exists as such? And that is only one aspect to consider.

At any rate, I think I'll withdraw, as I've filled up far too much space as it is. It's a good discussion, and I may pop back in now and again; but it's time I shut up and let others speak, I think. (Looking back over this post, I'd say it's long past time!) However -- for the aspiring writers out there, I hope that both sides have provided food for thought, so that anyone interested in writing a story on the subject has had their imagination stimulated to start extrapolating and giving serious consideration to what the implications of such a change would be. The better thought-through this is (whichever direction you decide), the better your stories will be; the more thought-provoking as well as more entertaining....

[jackokent]

Originally Posted by SpaceShip

RIP Hoops. Oh, and look at Jackokent's post - he's a millionaire!

I wish!

But that's the point and I think Tau Zero made it much better than me, I don't need to be a millionaire. You can be happy with the life you are living whatever it is (obviously there are exceptions ie you can't feed yourself or people are oppressing you, you're ill etc). I haven't got the perfect life by any means if you were looking at it from the outside, I work silly hours that many people would hate. But for me it's perfect. This is why I can not imagine not wanting to prolong life... cause it's so great. Everything can be fun, even long boring meetings can be fun if you want to make them fun.

So if you are having such a great time why on earth would you not want to prolong it. And yes I know too much of a good thing can be bad, but I subscribe to the view that too much of a good thing can be wonderful.

There have been a number of views here expressed about death making you grow. I agree, but I doubt its the ONLY way to make you grow. Humans are resourceful, we'd find other ways, or at least we'd have a go. No one want's not to grow afterall, and just think how much growing we'd do if we had all that time.

And lastly, if we did all get cheesed off with immortality we could start looking for a cure. And we'd have ages to find one. Not like now where we're all looking for a cure for death and the clock's ticking.

In the imortal words of Robbie Williams "I'm not scared of dying, I just don't want to."

[HoopyFrood]

It's great having such a perfect life...but think, having to do that every day for eternity. Day in and day out, doing the same thing. Yes, it might seem like bliss at the moment, and it might still seem like that after 100 years or so...but what about after a million? Or a billion?

Immortality does sound like a wonderful idea, but it's just too much in my eyes. Life is, as the saying goes, too short at the moment, so I would happily accept a few more centuries...but I just couldn't go on for the rest of time. Even though the world is an amazing place, with so much to see and do...with the rest of eternity to do it all, even that will eventually become tiresome. And I think that change would probably stop occuring after a while...it may take a long time (but hell, you have a great deal of time on your hands) but eventually it will get to the point where all needs are catered for, humans would want for nothing, life would be perfect...but monotonous.

Nope, I have to say, I really would not accept immortality. Long life...yeah, bring it on...but not immortality. No thanks.

[jackokent]

Originally Posted by HoopyFrood

It's great having such a perfect life...but think, having to do that every day for eternity. Day in and day out, doing the same thing. .

I'd take my chances, and life is only perfect becuase of the ups and down, not doing the same things day in day out. I am not talking about white sand, beauitful people perfect, I am talking about the fact that there are trees and books and things you've never seen and people you haven't met and problems to get over and arguments to make up from .. or not. That's what makes life perfect and maybe I have no imagination but I don't see how that could ever get boring.

However I can't imagine 10million years ahead it's just too far away so I'd take my chances and give it a go.