Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: sirana on January 06, 2008, 09:02:55 AM
-
I had this discussion with a couple of friends. If you could decide whether you wanted to be immortal or not, would you do it?
The rules were:
- You won't age (and therefore not die of age)
- It is possible to reverse the aging process (so you can go back to the physical age that you like most)
- You won't get any diseases that are common at a higher age (like Parkinson, Alzheimer etc.)
- You can die by accidents or diseases that are normal for your age
- You can kill yourself
Since these are (in my mind) pretty positive starting points for being immortal I was rather surprised that out of the 20 or so people that I asked about this, only three(including me) would choose to become immortal .
So I decided to take this question to a SciFi audience, to see if the reaction would be different.
I included a poll, but mostly I'd like to hear about the whys especially if you would turn down the offer of immortality.
-
I probably would say no. There are two questions that came to my mind immediately:
1 - Would be alone in immortality, or whether it would be an option available to everyone?
2 - Can I be open about my immortality or would I need to keep it a secret?
I have no particular interest in seeing all my friends and loved ones age and die while I remain young, forced to maintain a string of new aliases in order for people not to notice this happening.
At the same time, if immortality is widespread and culturally acceptable, it would seem to inevitably lead to over-population, and knock our already non-sustainable way of life totally off balance. There would be horrible resource wars - the only realistic way for an immortal community to survive is to eliminate all the procreators (mortal or immortal), to make sure that the population is stable. Even if this is achieved non-violently, I still don't think I want to live in a world with no children.
Now, there could be other options - if, say, we first became capable of colonizing other planets, and then society discovered immortality, it may be worthwhile to start afresh somewhere as an immortal community. But I don't believe that it's possible for planet colonization on a grand scale to begin in my lifetime, and I wouldn't want to become immortal now on the gamble that it might become tolerable in a few centuries.
-
I'd like to become immortal in order to reduce some of the chances of dying, sure in your scenario I could be hit by a car tomorrow, but I like the idea of, as much as possible, making the ending of my life more of a choice on my part than ageing or dumb fate.
-
I probably would say no. There are two questions that came to my mind immediately:
1 - Would be alone in immortality, or whether it would be an option available to everyone?
2 - Can I be open about my immortality or would I need to keep it a secret?
Since my original motivation was a sort of technical solution (you know, nanomachine that crawl through your body and reverse the aging process) instead of a magical one, immortality would be available to everyone (at least in the developed world).
Overpopulation would surely be a result of such technology, but I don't believe that would necessarily lead to catastrophe. Even without touching space colonization or a complete fallback to virtual reality I do not doubt that the earth could sustain a very higher number of people than we have right now, if there is a big enough technological advance (those nanomachines might come in handy there ;-)
And interestingly the rate of Overpopulation wouldn't be that much higher than it already is.
According to the CIA World Factbook we have a Birth Rate of about 21 births/1000 people a year and a Death Rate of about 8.5 deaths/1000 people a year. So we have a "Additional People Rate" of about 12.5 Additional People /1000 people a year. If nobody died anymore and people would still get as many babies (unlikely) we would have a jump from 12.5 to 21.
It would mean that instead of doubling the world's population every 70 years, we would double it every 35 years. It sure is a huge change and would lead to huge problems, but nothing that can't be solved imho. Also I would guess that people that are immortal wouldn't get as many children in a certain time period than people who aren't.
-
Also a death rate of zero is not realistic. There would always be people who died of accidents or diseases, chose not to become immortal or commit suicide, even if everyone could afford to become immortal.
So the change in population growth would be even less than I imagined in the last example.
-
Since my original motivation was a sort of technical solution (you know, nanomachine that crawl through your body and reverse the aging process) instead of a magical one, immortality would be available to everyone (at least in the developed world).
I would expect that these nanomachines, being very small and mobile, would probably not stay in the host body forever. Assuming they can self-replicate to replace their own population, I can see them spreading through the population like viruses... so immortality would be yet another thing we can't really control once it's unleashed.
I also have no doubt there would be a severe cultural backlash to the very idea of the technology; certain religious groups are bound to object to it, others are bound to embrace/mandate it. Not just religious groups, of course; there are endless social dynamics you could play with here.
As for population control, unless your immortality tech can feed all of us, there are certain natural population controls that will take effect beyond a certain point. We can still be killed, so we are vulnerable to the planet's immune system! We will run out of water (though nano tech might be a way to clean it), we will run out of food, we will poison ourselves... even colonizing space doesn't solve the problems of sharing resources, producing energy, and keeping groups of people from being suspicious of each other (no amount of tech is likely to solve THAT primate issue).
Of course, if we don't solve those problems now, immortality is kind of a moot point.
-
I voted for yes until I read that you purposed it as coming from a tech solution. Population doubling every forty years instead of every seventy is a big difference.
current rate
2000 6.3 billion
2070 12.6
2140 25.2
2210 50.4
as opposed to
2000 6.3 billion
2040 12.6
2080 25.2
2120 50.4
2160 100.8
2200 201.6
Of course many of the people dying are dying before they have kids or are finished having kids. So even if we assume folks are still dying, it would probably be offset by the numbers who would now be able to have kids. That puts us back at doubling every 35 years or less.
2000 6.3 billion
2035 12.6
2070 25.2
2105 50.4
2140 100.8
2175 201.6
2210 403.2
You're looking at a four or eight fold larger population over 200 years than you would have at the current rate. The greatest threat against this planet is population growth. I do not want to be around to watch this all shake out. It would be kill or be killed for resources.
-
Of course many of the people dying are dying before they have kids or are finished having kids. So even if we assume folks are still dying, it would probably be offset by the numbers who would now be able to have kids. That puts us back at doubling every 35 years or less.
Actually, it's even worse, because the original proposal included eternal youth. Which means that some people (and I think it would be a significant amount) will keep on having children for far longer than is possible now. And I'm not only talking about people such as Ultra Orthodox Jews who believe it is their religious duty to have as many children as they possibly can, and would thus have dozens of kids per couple every century. I'm talking about people like my parents, who, once me and my brother moved out of the house, started expressing regret that they could not have another pair of children. If enough people start having 1 or 2 more kids during their extended lifetime, it could seriously accelerate population growth.
I guess one way to look at this is that there are two possible interpretations of the question. One is "Would you like your current life and lifestyle, adjusted in minor ways, to last forever?" - the answer for that is yes, I probably would, but at the same time that's just not something I think is remotely possible. The other is "would you wish to be immortal in any sort of vaguely realistic scenario", in which case I think the answer is no.
-
I'm going to live forever or die trying.
Life has infinite varieties, it need never get dull. There are so very many things I've never done, and in a limited lifespan, might never get to do. I'd want to live forever even if I didn't have eternal youth, even if I was an old man in a sickbed. I'd read, and write, and communicate with loved ones, and make new loved ones. As I write this I'm about to go in for knee surgery in a few days - I busted my ACL while skiing two weeks ago. Being bedridden or using crutches sucks, but I still love life so very much. I'd take an eternity of this if it was offered. Eternal youth and vigor? No question.
-
You're looking at a four or eight fold larger population over 200 years than you would have at the current rate. The greatest threat against this planet is population growth. I do not want to be around to watch this all shake out. It would be kill or be killed for resources.
I'm not arguing the numbers, but you are projecting an awful long time in the future. We have absolutely no way of knowing how the situation would be in 200 years. I don't think you can even say with any certainty that we would have any problem with resources at all. We might be able to manufacture every resource out of every other material via molecular manipulation.
As for available space on the earth, we might be able to colonize the solar system or build a new planet or even take a try at interstellar travel. Hell, 200 years ago the most advanced mode of transportation was the horse buggy and the pace of technical advance is only getting faster and faster. We have simply no way of knowing what the future will bring in terms of technology.
But what I'm a really driving at is another point. Even when you think that there might be a big danger of catastrophe why not get immortal in spite of it. If things really turn out as bad as you expected, you can still jump into a vulcano or kill yourself some other way, so you're not really much worse of then if you didn't choose immortality. But if the catastrophe doesn't happen, you get to live forever (or as long as you want) with the people you love (or at least the ones who also choose to become immortal).
And Ocicat, by the way, you pretty much summed up my reasons for choosing immortality. Hope your knee gets better.
-
This may not be an academic question. In Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near," he makes a very good case that since technology develops at an exponential, not linear, rate all of us may very well have the choice of living forever within our lifetime.
Yeah, I'm with Ocicat and Sirana. Life is beautiful, and I want as much of it as possible. I'm kind of surprised that on a science fiction forum the respose to "would you like this advanced technology?" is "no, humanity cannot handle the problems it will create."
If humans have the capability to extend life forever, you guys really think that the resource problem will continue to baffle us? .03% of one of my sub-personalities will be thinking of you when I have downloaded my consciousness onto the Internet and am simultaneously playing World of Warcraft and in a virtual Vegas hotel room with a dozen Boomer clones and exploring the methane lakes of Titan with my wife and kids and watching all the Firefly:The Next Generation episodes.
I'm curious if people's answer to this question has anything to do with their belief in an afterlife? I believe that there nothing after death, and that scares me. I don't want to be nothing. I would rather have anything than nothing (I think).
-
This may not be an academic question. In Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near," he makes a very good case that since technology develops at an exponential, not linear, rate all of us may very well have the choice of living forever within our lifetime.
Yeah, I'm with Ocicat and Sirana. Life is beautiful, and I want as much of it as possible. I'm kind of surprised that on a science fiction forum the respose to "would you like this advanced technology?" is "no, humanity cannot handle the problems it will create."
Oh, that's a different question. I'm all for the technology being developed. I'm just not sure I'd opt in.
I do agree with the sentiments of "life is beautiful and I want as much of it as possible", actually. I just feel that life's finiteness is part of what makes it beautiful. I would certainly want to extend my life, just not indefinitely. And the prospect of "you get to choose when you die" sounds far more disturbing than appealing to me.
If humans have the capability to extend life forever, you guys really think that the resource problem will continue to baffle us? .03% of one of my sub-personalities will be thinking of you when I have downloaded my consciousness onto the Internet and am simultaneously playing World of Warcraft and in a virtual Vegas hotel room with a dozen Boomer clones and exploring the methane lakes of Titan with my wife and kids and watching all the Firefly:The Next Generation episodes.
You're changing paradigms here. Having sub-personalities, expanded intelligence, and all sorts of nifty bells and whistles are great prospects. I'm all for them. But they have nothing to do with becoming immortal. The original post included a list of what you can change and what you can't, and none of these extra abilities were part of it. Sure, if you are immortal you might survive long enough to get these. But if immortality is invented first, we'll probably never survive as a race to see them.
I said it above, but perhaps not clearly enough, so I'll reiterate here - I'd happily choose immortality if it is coupled with a solution to the world's problems. But that wasn't the original question, and being a science fiction fan doesn't make me a wishful thinking fan (well, I enjoy it in stories, I just try not to make life decisions based upon it). If anything, science fiction contains many cautionary tales on how seemingly benign technology can make things much worse if rushed into blindly.
I'm curious if people's answer to this question has anything to do with their belief in an afterlife? I believe that there nothing after death, and that scares me. I don't want to be nothing. I would rather have anything than nothing (I think).
I don't believe in an afterlife. If I did, I would choose immortality alone on a cold, lifeless husk of a planet rather than face the prospect of going to either heaven or hell. Better the hell you know than the heaven you don't. The main reason immortality doesn't appeal to me is because I don't believe there is any part of me that is inherently immortal.
-
I say no to immortality for me on philosophical grounds. I'm an atheist [or agnostic at most] without a belief in any afterlife that "I" will have, but I still believe that death serves a purpose - and not just to recycle our atoms. Metaphorically speaking, I believe living forever would destroy my soul.
Of course, I admit it is easy to speculate so when I also believe immortality will never be a reality, no matter what Kurzweil thinks.
-
I'm going to live forever or die trying.
Life has infinite varieties, it need never get dull. There are so very many things I've never done, and in a limited lifespan, might never get to do. I'd want to live forever even if I didn't have eternal youth, even if I was an old man in a sickbed. I'd read, and write, and communicate with loved ones, and make new loved ones. As I write this I'm about to go in for knee surgery in a few days - I busted my ACL while skiing two weeks ago. Being bedridden or using crutches sucks, but I still love life so very much. I'd take an eternity of this if it was offered. Eternal youth and vigor? No question.
I'm with Ocicat on this. There is so much that I'll never see and my bookshelves are full of books I will never have time to read. I barely have enough time to watch Battlestar Galactica DVD's. It's even kind of depressing in middle age knowing that I'm getting worse at some sports which I've played since childhood. I'd love to have my 20 y/o legs back.
-
I do agree with the sentiments of "life is beautiful and I want as much of it as possible", actually. I just feel that life's finiteness is part of what makes it beautiful.
I agree. Immortality would require a paradigm shift in how we value life, but I'm not too worried about that. Playing with my kid, reading good books, getting drunk with good friends, travel, sex, etc. are also part of what makes life beautiful to me. With more time to do those, I could do without the finiteness.
You're changing paradigms here. Having sub-personalities, expanded intelligence, and all sorts of nifty bells and whistles are great prospects. I'm all for them. But they have nothing to do with becoming immortal. The original post included a list of what you can change and what you can't, and none of these extra abilities were part of it. Sure, if you are immortal you might survive long enough to get these. But if immortality is invented first, we'll probably never survive as a race to see them.
I was being glib, but my point was that there will be other technological changes. And the bigger a problem gets the greater the incentive to find a solution. If there is a resource shortage then the resource will become expensive and alternatives and/or efficiency will become more attractive. This has happened several times in our history and is probably happening with oil right now.
I guess the difference is that I believe that mankind could and would be able to solve immortality-related challenges and you do not. You could be right, but by opting out before knowing the result you are taking a pretty hefty gamble.
Metaphorically speaking, I believe living forever would destroy my soul.
But wouldn't dying destroy your soul? You could find you are mistaken about living forever, but the dying part is a sure thing.
Yeah, I had you guys pegged for not believing in an afterlife, I just wanted to make sure. My first thought after becoming an atheist was, "Oh, crap. I can't let myself die."
-
So, if you live forever, what would the retirement age be?
The idea of working forever, even at my fittest and trimmest, is really depressing.
Immortality with independent wealth...now your talking.
-
So, if you live forever, what would the retirement age be?
The idea of working forever, even at my fittest and trimmest, is really depressing.
Immortality with independent wealth...now your talking.
A simple investment program over a slightly expanded working life would easily give you a comfortable retirement. If you were willing to work a little longer or invest more each month, you could have a spectacular retirement.
Sorry, I worked in the industry for a while. It's really not hard, especially if you have some time.
-
So, if you live forever, what would the retirement age be?
42, of course!
The idea of working forever, even at my fittest and trimmest, is really depressing.
If by "working" you mean "performing meaningless, rote tasks in order to justify your consumption of resources", then yes, that is depressing.
If by "working" you mean "conning someone into paying you for stuff you like doing, anyway", then just figure out how to bottle your magic formula and you won't need any investments!
-
I'm agnostic (almost atheist).
I would choose to live forever.
If the world developed horrible problems, I'd just wait them out. My curiosity would keep me alive. I'd always want to see what would happen next. My biggest problem would be memory. My memory sucks. I can't remember what I was doing when I left work last Friday, not to mention what I was doing 150 years ago.
I wouldn't worry about humanity overpopulating. Whenever we run the risk of doing that, we seem to come up with all kinds of reasons and methods of thinning our own herds.
-
Um...YEAH.
Being dead sounds very boring to say the least. Existing beats not existing just about every time.
Easy solution for the overpopulation scenario, or at least a part fix: You're only allowed 1 offspring. Then you get sterilized before your treatment.
The best age would 25. Trust me, it's all down-hill from there, physicaly.
-
I voted for yes until I read that you purposed it as coming from a tech solution.
Does that mean that you would choose a "magical" solution where only you would get to be immortal?
-
I voted for yes until I read that you purposed it as coming from a tech solution.
Does that mean that you would choose a "magical" solution where only you would get to be immortal?
It means that I don't see any of the pie-in-the-sky solutions to the population problem working out in the short term. I think, as it is now, we're heading towards massive problems. The fight over drinking water alone will take huge numbers of lives in the next twenty years. If the numbers go the way I showed, mass exterminations and culling would be inevitable. As much as I hate the idea of death (devout atheist here (I love oxymorons)), I don't think I could handle living if it meant butchery of other people. (more so than we already have)
The Highlander or even Angel version would, however, be very interesting for a few centuries.
-
Sorry, if that sounded glib or attacking. I wasn't asking if you liked the "magical" solution better than the technical one or saying that the technical solution was somehow better.
I just wanted to know if the magical solution would appeal to you, even though it was only offered to yourself.
-
I had this discussion with a couple of friends. If you could decide whether you wanted to be immortal or not, would you do it?
The rules were:
- You won't age (and therefore not die of age)
- It is possible to reverse the aging process (so you can go back to the physical age that you like most)
- You won't get any diseases that are common at a higher age (like Parkinson, Alzheimer etc.)
- You can die by accidents or diseases that are normal for your age
- You can kill yourself
I really can't get behind this kind of immortality.
Russell brings up some great points about population figures, but even if you wait that out and are one of the surviving few all you've done is drag out your already uninteresting life. For example:
These days we all live to be about 100.
First 10 years will be spent in school learning basics.
Next 10 will be spent reaching physical maturity and continuing education.
Next 20 will be spent raising a family and/or starting a career
Next 40 will be spent working in chosen career, existing with family, paying bills, etc.
Next 20 will be spent being old and sitting around the house.
In the future you've lain out:
First 10 years will be spent in school learning basics.
Next 10 will be spent reaching physical maturity and continuing education
-Stop Aging-
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
See the problem?
-
In the future you've lain out:
First 10 years will be spent in school learning basics.
Next 10 will be spent reaching physical maturity and continuing education
-Stop Aging-
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
See the problem?
I am not sure I get exactly what you are driving at. Why would everything you'd do after your 20th birthday be dating, continuing education or starting a career/family?
Or do you mean that after a while everything would get dull?
Sorry, I just don't understand what you mean.
-
If you were careful, you'd only ever have to retire once. You might have to work 50 or 60 years instead of 40 but you could amass enough wealth that you would never have to work again. You could spend the rest of your time doing whatever you liked. For lots of people that might mean getting paid a small amount for doing what they loved to do. And if they got bored or tired of it and wanted to start again, they could.
-
If you were careful, you'd only ever have to retire once. You might have to work 50 or 60 years instead of 40 but you could amass enough wealth that you would never have to work again. You could spend the rest of your time doing whatever you liked. For lots of people that might mean getting paid a small amount for doing what they loved to do. And if they got bored or tired of it and wanted to start again, they could.
I agree. Example:
I did the math the other day. I'll probably only read 1000-1500 novels in the entire remainder of my life. I'm certain there are many others I'd love to read, but won't be able to. That's just one small aspect of my life where I simply won't have time to do everything I want to do. I'm certain that If I could eek out a few eons, I would find a way to stay busy and interested in life. There are so many things to do and see, and news ones being created all the time.
-
If you were careful, you'd only ever have to retire once. You might have to work 50 or 60 years instead of 40 but you could amass enough wealth that you would never have to work again. You could spend the rest of your time doing whatever you liked. For lots of people that might mean getting paid a small amount for doing what they loved to do. And if they got bored or tired of it and wanted to start again, they could.
But that only works if a very, very small number of people are immortal.
Stocks are, and will always be, based on the labor of the working class. Unfortunately as mortals die off only immortals will be left and they all had the same plan: Invest for eternity.
edit: spelling
-
Stocks are, and will always be, based on the labor of the working class. Unfortunately as mortals die off only immortals will be left and they all had the same plan: Invest for eternity.
Not necessarily. The whole concept of a stock "bubble" is when people start over-investing in stocks, making the value of the stock depend on investments, rather than on any independent value.
Of course, that won't change the problem - it's possible that a large amount of immortals will invest in something, thus maintaining a constant high value and keeping all of them rich on paper. But that will only last as long as the number of them actually selling the stock and using this wealth for anything is very small. Otherwise the bubble collapses and everyone loses everything. So you'll either end up with a lot of immortals living in poverty, unable to use the money they theoretically own, or a lot of immortals living in poverty because they lost everything.
-
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
See the problem?
I don't see the problem. I enjoyed doing all those things, and I wish I had the chance to go back and do them again. Plus at some point you get to add "go to other planets" to the list.
I voted for yes until I read that you purposed it as coming from a tech solution.
Does that mean that you would choose a "magical" solution where only you would get to be immortal?
It means that I don't see any of the pie-in-the-sky solutions to the population problem working out in the short term. I think, as it is now, we're heading towards massive problems. The fight over drinking water alone will take huge numbers of lives in the next twenty years. If the numbers go the way I showed, mass exterminations and culling would be inevitable. As much as I hate the idea of death (devout atheist here (I love oxymorons)), I don't think I could handle living if it meant butchery of other people. (more so than we already have)
You mentioned the drinking water problem before. Do you have a link about this you could post. Desalination technology exists now. If drinking water becomes scarce enough to spark wars then it becomes scarce enough to desalinate it.
I think you have an overly pessimistic view of humanity. There more people on the planet now than ever before, but fewer of them are hungry and fewer of them are dying in wars.
Although I am an optimist, I am aware that are bad guys who will be happy to employ immortality technology. Do you want to leave the world to them?
I'm iffy on being able to save up enough to retire forever, though. If everyone is super wealthy then you'll have super inflation. So I think we'll have to keep working. But there will not be as much pressure to hurry up and grab a job and start saving before you die. There will be more incentive to stick it out and work towards your dream job no matter how long it takes. The whole idea of getting and education, and then starting your career will be turned on its head. People will be working and going to school as they please and as they can afford it. Maybe we'll go through cycles of working then taking a long break then working again. Or maybe you could work and go to school at the same time.
With no more biological deadline - especially for women - people will be waiting longer to have families, too.
Also, much is made over only the rich being able to afford the treatment. But even in the process is expensive, you have a million years to pay it off. Wouldn't there be super long-term payment plans?
-
In the future you've lain out:
First 10 years will be spent in school learning basics.
Next 10 will be spent reaching physical maturity and continuing education
-Stop Aging-
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
See the problem?
I am not sure I get exactly what you are driving at. Why would everything you'd do after your 20th birthday be dating, continuing education or starting a career/family?
Or do you mean that after a while everything would get dull?
Sorry, I just don't understand what you mean.
Sorry, I don't seem to be doing very well at making myself clear.
A friend of mine ran an RPG with elves in it. Elves are an immortal race. What seems to escape everyone about immortality is that time slows down for them. For humans there are stages of development, social, psychological, and emotional, that we go through as we age. No matter how smart a 12 year old is she'll never be allowed a driver's license because society believes she's too young. No matter how gifted an 17 year old is he'll never be a surgeon because he isn't legally mature enough to handle the risks and responsibilities. If you were to spend 30 years as a college student everyone would say "wow, that's a lot." In the middle ages marriage age was, by today's standards, disgracefully young. Take Romeo and Juliet (http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/romeojuliet/canalysis.html) for example, Shakespeare's legendary star-crossed lovers were about 14.
All of these are based on our perception of time relative to how long we expect to live. The younger you are when you're going to die the sooner you will be planning to get married, have job, etc. The opposite is true too. If our lives were extended to 500 years then 30 years in school would be short, 16 would be ludicrously young to let children drive on their own, and 18 isn't any better when it comes to handling the affairs of adult hood.
At the other end of this is that there is no end of life. There is no getting too old to work. No watching your children become adults. No 'time to grow up and be an adult'. The whole immortal society would either be stuck in their mid twenties, or life would go on as it does now, but with a great exaggeration of the stages of development
-
Next 500 years will be spent dating, continuing education, starting a career/family.
See the problem?
I don't see the problem. I enjoyed doing all those things, and I wish I had the chance to go back and do them again. Plus at some point you get to add "go to other planets" to the list.
Ok. That's a really good point. :)
Moderator: Fixed quoting
-
Okay, so time "slows down". We spend a long time doing education and such. Life cycles become very different...
I still don't actually see the problem.
Let's go back to your elves. What's so very bad about their lifestyle?
-
At the other end of this is that there is no end of life. There is no getting too old to work. No watching your children become adults. No 'time to grow up and be an adult'. The whole immortal society would either be stuck in their mid twenties, or life would go on as it does now, but with a great exaggeration of the stages of development
I agree that there would be a exaggeration of the stages of developement, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Going to school longer for example could result in a completely different learning environment where you can go deeper into different subjects and experiment more.
Also I believe that the more or less linear structure of our current lives (school, starting career, working,retire) would be broken up.
You go to school for a longer time, start a career, work for 30 years, get bored with your job, spend 10 years hitchhiking across the solar system and doing some small jobs, go back to school for 5 years, start a new career, get bored with it, spend a year reading books, go back to school some more, start a career etc...) Because you don't have to make the most efficient use of your time you can do more of the things you like to do, but don't have the time for when you have a finite livespan.
-
I think you have an overly pessimistic view of humanity. There more people on the planet now than ever before, but fewer of them are hungry and fewer of them are dying in wars.
I think that's only true if you look at percentages, not actual numbers (at least as far as hunger goes). According to Wikipedia's entry on malnutrition, the estimated number of hungry people in the world is around 500 million. That's more than the entire population of the world in 1600. And this statistic does not include the large number of people in the Western world who do not consider themselves hungry but have food-related health problems because their live on diets that are designed to be cheap to produce rather than healthy.
And besides, our currently lifestyle is generally agreed to be non-sustainable. Even if populations remain constant, hunger is expected to increase. Most of these problems are going to get a lot worse within our lifetimes even if we don't become immortal. They might be solvable, and they might indeed be solved, but if offered the chance for immortality, I'd only do it if I'm in a position where I think they're going to be certainly solved, immortals or not. Optimism is not enough, I'd like solid evidence for that certainty before being willing to change my position on this.
Although I am an optimist, I am aware that are bad guys who will be happy to employ immortality technology. Do you want to leave the world to them?
Huh? Immortality used to be a personal choice and now it's becoming a moral obligation? Screw that.
Also, much is made over only the rich being able to afford the treatment. But even in the process is expensive, you have a million years to pay it off. Wouldn't there be super long-term payment plans?
I don't think anyone said that only the rich will be able to afford the treatment. In fact, I think the opposite was posited several times above. I think the point was that only the rich may have a chance of becoming immortal and not coming to really hate that choice soon enough.
-
I voted for yes until I read that you purposed it as coming from a tech solution.
Does that mean that you would choose a "magical" solution where only you would get to be immortal?
It means that I don't see any of the pie-in-the-sky solutions to the population problem working out in the short term. I think, as it is now, we're heading towards massive problems. The fight over drinking water alone will take huge numbers of lives in the next twenty years. If the numbers go the way I showed, mass exterminations and culling would be inevitable. As much as I hate the idea of death (devout atheist here (I love oxymorons)), I don't think I could handle living if it meant butchery of other people. (more so than we already have)
You mentioned the drinking water problem before. Do you have a link about this you could post. Desalination technology exists now. If drinking water becomes scarce enough to spark wars then it becomes scarce enough to desalinate it.
I think you have an overly pessimistic view of humanity. There more people on the planet now than ever before, but fewer of them are hungry and fewer of them are dying in wars.
The thing is that nobody really ever gets moving on solutions until it is far too late and then they try to play catch up. Also much of the ocean is too poluted to desalinize and fish stocks are crashing as it is. We're losing more sources of food then we're gaining.
This is from the UNESCO web site.
UNESCO DIRECTOR-GENERAL WARNS OF LOOMING WATER CRISIS (http://portal.unesco.org/es/ev.php-URL_ID=4783&URL_DO=DO_PRINTPAGE&URL_SECTION=201.html)
Today, about 20 percent of the world's population lack access to safe and reliable water supplies, and more than 50 percent are without basic sanitation. At any given time, about half the people living in developing countries suffer from water-related illnesses such as diarrhoea, parasitic infections, river blindness and malaria. These diseases kill about five million people each year, especially children under the age of five.
I didn't have the chance to really look for stuff. I gotta get moving, but this makes some of my points. The big thing is that under our current immortality scenario we'd have massive time compression of the problems.
-
Immortality from technology would never be available to everyone. Whatever provided it, being nano-bots, genetic manipulation or whatever else, it would still be based on limited resources. They would still be available to the rich first. It would lead to even bigger class differences than we have now. People motivated to accumulate wealth and given a much longer time to do it would simply amass that many more resources under their control.
-
Immortality from technology would never be available to everyone. Whatever provided it, being nano-bots, genetic manipulation or whatever else, it would still be based on limited resources. They would still be available to the rich first. It would lead to even bigger class differences than we have now. People motivated to accumulate wealth and given a much longer time to do it would simply amass that many more resources under their control.
And then as more and more of the rich folks become immortal and take over these resources including food, water, and land; the poor get pushed out. The poor then try to rise up and they get culled.
Now if the immortality treatment made people sterile, that might make things interesting. Are you willing to wait until after you have kids to take the treatment? Would the population come under control that way?
-
Immortality from technology would never be available to everyone. Whatever provided it, being nano-bots, genetic manipulation or whatever else, it would still be based on limited resources. They would still be available to the rich first. It would lead to even bigger class differences than we have now. People motivated to accumulate wealth and given a much longer time to do it would simply amass that many more resources under their control.
Something like nano-bots would not necessarily be based on limited resources, at least not so limited that it couldn't be possible to give it to everybody someday. Look at personal computers. First they were only for gouvernments and military purposes. Then they became available for the very rich. Then for the rich. Then for (nearly) everybody in the developed world. Now we are giving them to school children in (some) developing countries. I'd be surprised if in 20 years a significant portion of people on this planet still doesn't own personal computers.
Something similar could happen with immortality technology. Probably much slower, but I don't think you can say that that it would never be available to everyone.
-
There are a couple things that may have been overlooked so far.
- It is possible to reverse the aging process (so you can go back to the physical age that you like most)
But if everyone after the initial crop of adopters is becoming immortal at, say, ages 20-35 (depending on children if there is a sterilization policy), that radically decreases the range of physical ages available to them. Is physical age-changing a one-way procedure or can you increase your physical age as well? Think about all the child vampire stories you've read. Think about all the child soldiers that actually exist in the world today--if the immortality procedure could be induced involuntarily, there are plenty of corrupt governments and insurgent groups/freedom fighters that would jump at the chance for eternally childlike armies or fleets of childlike secret agents, or master thieves, or whatever. They would be young, limber, and small forever, which is a huge training window for those precise tasks for which children's physical structures are ideal. And if the immortality 'bots can replicate on their own, you would only need to raise the funds for one treatment and then systematically spread them throughout your chosen population. Etc.
- You can die by accidents or diseases that are normal for your age
But in scenarios that have been discussed already, what is considered "normal" in a world where tech immortality is not yet possible is not an accurate gauge for what will be "normal" after a couple of years of availability and adoption. Depending on whether the nanomachines could communicate wirelessly (but this would still work if they couple together or send bloodstream packets or what-have-you), someone could set up a virus that would destroy the nanobots or give them faulty instructions to attack their host--a problem that is definitely not normal for any age at the moment.
- You won't age (and therefore not die of age)
What exactly is meant by "dying of age"? Isn't "dying of old age" not of a disease common in the elderly currently a function of cells not being able to repair themselves and organs wearing out and so forth? If that problem is solved by some technical procedure, cf my response to the previous point, in that in a world where cells and organs are more robust it is conceivable that, even if no specific advancements were made toward curing or vaccinating against things like cancer and infectious diseases, "normal" diseases for an age group could also be rendered ineffective. Until a mutated strain successfully infected the world, of course, depending on the tech solution for the immortality...
-
I'd be surprised if in 20 years a significant portion of people on this planet still doesn't own personal computers.
Something similar could happen with immortality technology. Probably much slower, but I don't think you can say that that it would never be available to everyone.
2/3 of the earth's surface is covered with water yet half the people in the world don't have constant access to clean
water. How long have we been able to purify water? In order for immortality to be available for everyone it would have to be free and limitless. The closest thing we have to that is air. We tax people for polluting it.
-
2/3 of the earth's surface is covered with water yet half the people in the world don't have constant access to clean
water. How long have we been able to purify water? In order for immortality to be available for everyone it would have to be free and limitless. The closest thing we have to that is air. We tax people for polluting it.
I suppose a lot of these people live in impoverished nations where transport and/or purification of water is too expensive. How much of the 2/3 is salt water? What does a desalination plant cost?
-
How much of the 2/3 is salt water? What does a desalination plant cost?
greater than zero
That's my point. If the cost is greater than zero then there will be scarcity and it will not be available to everyone.
-
At the other end of this is that there is no end of life. There is no getting too old to work. No watching your children become adults. No 'time to grow up and be an adult'. The whole immortal society would either be stuck in their mid twenties, or life would go on as it does now, but with a great exaggeration of the stages of development
I agree that there would be a exaggeration of the stages of developement, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Going to school longer for example could result in a completely different learning environment where you can go deeper into different subjects and experiment more.
Also I believe that the more or less linear structure of our current lives (school, starting career, working,retire) would be broken up.
You go to school for a longer time, start a career, work for 30 years, get bored with your job, spend 10 years hitchhiking across the solar system and doing some small jobs, go back to school for 5 years, start a new career, get bored with it, spend a year reading books, go back to school some more, start a career etc...) Because you don't have to make the most efficient use of your time you can do more of the things you like to do, but don't have the time for when you have a finite livespan.
Very true. But there's nothing stopping you from doing that right now. You still have every opportunity do do those things, and some people do just that. The only difference is that you'd have more years to do it, and over everyone would have more years to do it and it wouldn't be special any more.
-
At the other end of this is that there is no end of life. There is no getting too old to work. No watching your children become adults. No 'time to grow up and be an adult'. The whole immortal society would either be stuck in their mid twenties, or life would go on as it does now, but with a great exaggeration of the stages of development
I agree that there would be a exaggeration of the stages of developement, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Going to school longer for example could result in a completely different learning environment where you can go deeper into different subjects and experiment more.
Also I believe that the more or less linear structure of our current lives (school, starting career, working,retire) would be broken up.
You go to school for a longer time, start a career, work for 30 years, get bored with your job, spend 10 years hitchhiking across the solar system and doing some small jobs, go back to school for 5 years, start a new career, get bored with it, spend a year reading books, go back to school some more, start a career etc...) Because you don't have to make the most efficient use of your time you can do more of the things you like to do, but don't have the time for when you have a finite livespan.
Very true. But there's nothing stopping you from doing that right now. You still have every opportunity do do those things, and some people do just that. The only difference is that you'd have more years to do it, and over everyone would have more years to do it and it wouldn't be special any more.
Um, I think there is something to stop me from doing that now: Death. I can run the cycle once. Twice if I had a bunch of resources that I don't have, but that's it. Then you're dead. Poof. Game over, man. Game over.
-
At the other end of this is that there is no end of life. There is no getting too old to work. No watching your children become adults. No 'time to grow up and be an adult'. The whole immortal society would either be stuck in their mid twenties, or life would go on as it does now, but with a great exaggeration of the stages of development
I agree that there would be a exaggeration of the stages of developement, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Going to school longer for example could result in a completely different learning environment where you can go deeper into different subjects and experiment more.
Also I believe that the more or less linear structure of our current lives (school, starting career, working,retire) would be broken up.
You go to school for a longer time, start a career, work for 30 years, get bored with your job, spend 10 years hitchhiking across the solar system and doing some small jobs, go back to school for 5 years, start a new career, get bored with it, spend a year reading books, go back to school some more, start a career etc...) Because you don't have to make the most efficient use of your time you can do more of the things you like to do, but don't have the time for when you have a finite livespan.
Very true. But there's nothing stopping you from doing that right now. You still have every opportunity do do those things, and some people do just that. The only difference is that you'd have more years to do it, and over everyone would have more years to do it and it wouldn't be special any more.
Um, I think there is something to stop me from doing that now: Death. I can run the cycle once. Twice if I had a bunch of resources that I don't have, but that's it. Then you're dead. Poof. Game over, man. Game over.
But this brand of immortality doesn't change that, it only elongates the circle.
There is nothing keep you from getting hit by a car, getting mugged, shot, stabbed, or crushed in a snow cave (http://www.ssqq.com/archive/vinlin10.htm). You have only added years to your life, and you have years enough as it is. If anything this immortality will only let you put it off longer and longer until you end up just another million-to-one anecdote.
-
There is nothing keep you from getting hit by a car, getting mugged, shot, stabbed, or crushed in a snow cave (http://www.ssqq.com/archive/vinlin10.htm). You have only added years to your life, and you have years enough as it is. If anything this immortality will only let you put it off longer and longer until you end up just another million-to-one anecdote.
You're right. We should ban snow caves, at least.
:D
-
If anything this immortality will only let you put it off longer and longer until you end up just another million-to-one anecdote.
I foresee an entire population of paranoid agoraphobics afraid to leave their house.
-
But this brand of immortality doesn't change that, it only elongates the circle.
There is nothing keep you from getting hit by a car, getting mugged, shot, stabbed, or crushed in a snow cave (http://www.ssqq.com/archive/vinlin10.htm). You have only added years to your life, and you have years enough as it is. If anything this immortality will only let you put it off longer and longer until you end up just another million-to-one anecdote.
agreed. but running the circle 100 times instead of two times would be a definite improvement to me.
-
But this brand of immortality doesn't change that, it only elongates the circle.
There is nothing keep you from getting hit by a car, getting mugged, shot, stabbed, or crushed in a snow cave (http://www.ssqq.com/archive/vinlin10.htm). You have only added years to your life, and you have years enough as it is. If anything this immortality will only let you put it off longer and longer until you end up just another million-to-one anecdote.
agreed. but running the circle 100 times instead of two times would be a definite improvement to me.
Everyone will be trying to do everything. It seems to me everywhere would be packed full of people trying to do stuff and only really driving up the prices and cheapening the experience. Absolutely everywhere will become so commercial that every place will look just like the last.
It's already happening if you go to eastern Europe. Everyone thought western Europe was too commercial, so they started going to Prague. Prague became too commercial they moved on to Budapest. I was there this summer and it's no different than Prague.
The entire world will just look like a french shopping street or Disney World.
-
The entire world will just look like a french shopping street or Disney World.
Have you read Cory Doctorow's 'Down and Out in the Magical Kingdom'? From your answer I'm suspecting you have, or we have a nice big coincidence! DOMK is set in Disney World, and humanity has pretty much got the immortaility thing (as in this thread) down pat, except people can be 'backed up' in case of an accident.
His take on how the economy would work is rather interesting. Money and tangible items don't hold value in the same way they do today: the only real currency is 'whoofie' which is related to the respect you have in the community.
You can download the book in pretty well whatever format you prefer here (http://craphound.com/down/download.php).
-
The entire world will just look like a french shopping street or Disney World.
Have you read Cory Doctorow's 'Down and Out in the Magical Kingdom'? From your answer I'm suspecting you have, or we have a nice big coincidence! DOMK is set in Disney World, and humanity has pretty much got the immortaility thing (as in this thread) down pat, except people can be 'backed up' in case of an accident.
I subscribe to craphound in my iTunes, but it's all part of my backlog that I never seem to get around to. The only Doctorow I've listened to or read comes from EscapePod.
I guess great minds just think alike. ;D
-
Everyone will be trying to do everything.
I, for one, will NOT be trying certified public accountancy. :P
(..wish I had a Monty Python picture to put here.)
But that brings up an interesting thought....
I could see societies drafting people into compulsory menial duty. Once per century, everyone has to spend a decade as a ditch digger or picking up trash along the side of the road.
-
Everyone will be trying to do everything.
I, for one, will NOT be trying certified public accountancy. :P
(..wish I had a Monty Python picture to put here.)
But that brings up an interesting thought....
I could see societies drafting people into compulsory menial duty. Once per century, everyone has to spend a decade as a ditch digger or picking up trash along the side of the road.
I think there will always be people who need to work. With everybody trying to invest prices will go through the roof, but it would be unsustainable. Just like it was with housing this past couple of years and tech before that. Most investers will boom and bust. Inflation would be totally out of hand. We'd end up back where we are. Some would be very rich. Some would be comfortable. Most would be scratchy to keep there heads above water.
-
agreed. but running the circle 100 times instead of two times would be a definite improvement to me.
I could not have put it better myself.
Everyone will be trying to do everything. It seems to me everywhere would be packed full of people trying to do stuff and only really driving up the prices and cheapening the experience. Absolutely everywhere will become so commercial that every place will look just like the last.
It's already happening if you go to eastern Europe. Everyone thought western Europe was too commercial, so they started going to Prague. Prague became too commercial they moved on to Budapest. I was there this summer and it's no different than Prague.
The entire world will just look like a french shopping street or Disney World.
I can totally live with that. There will always be something to do that I havent' done. I'm OK with everyone else trying to do it too. There will always be people and places where things are different from what I know. The places that I know will change enough while I'm out getting to know new places that they will be new places themselves when I get back.
As for the dilution of other cultures, or my own, that is perfectly normal.
Culture is NOT static, except in Disney World. Cultures change. Do you see everyone in Athens walking around in togas? Do you think they should? Of course not. So, Budapest becomes like Prague, and Atlanta becomes like Chicago.
That's OK.
Chicago is becoming like Montreal, and Prague is becoming like Paris. Once upon a time, every major European city was becoming like Paris. Before that, everything West of the Volga was becoming like Rome, which had previously become like Athens, which itself had become like Persiapolis...ad infinatum, ad nauseum. This is the nature of human society. It just happens. And I, for one, would love to be able to watch it happen.
-
agreed. but running the circle 100 times instead of two times would be a definite improvement to me.
I could not have put it better myself.
Everyone will be trying to do everything. It seems to me everywhere would be packed full of people trying to do stuff and only really driving up the prices and cheapening the experience. Absolutely everywhere will become so commercial that every place will look just like the last.
It's already happening if you go to eastern Europe. Everyone thought western Europe was too commercial, so they started going to Prague. Prague became too commercial they moved on to Budapest. I was there this summer and it's no different than Prague.
The entire world will just look like a french shopping street or Disney World.
I can totally live with that. There will always be something to do that I havent' done. I'm OK with everyone else trying to do it too. There will always be people and places where things are different from what I know. The places that I know will change enough while I'm out getting to know new places that they will be new places themselves when I get back.
As for the dilution of other cultures, or my own, that is perfectly normal.
Culture is NOT static, except in Disney World. Cultures change. Do you see everyone in Athens walking around in togas? Do you think they should? Of course not. So, Budapest becomes like Prague, and Atlanta becomes like Chicago.
That's OK.
Chicago is becoming like Montreal, and Prague is becoming like Paris. Once upon a time, every major European city was becoming like Paris. Before that, everything West of the Volga was becoming like Rome, which had previously become like Athens, which itself had become like Persiapolis...ad infinatum, ad nauseum. This is the nature of human society. It just happens. And I, for one, would love to be able to watch it happen.
The point was that if you get set down on the street in Paris, Prague, Budapest, Vienna, etc. You can't tell which city you're in. There isn't local color. There's international chain stores.
-
In my experience, it rather depends on the street. Granted, my experience with Europe is limited. I've only spent time in Rome and Paris, plus some layover time in Dublin and Dusseldorf. Each seemed very different and distinct, especially the Dusseldorf airport. Has anyone ever been in that airport? That was the most surreal place I have ever seen.
I should also qualify my remarks by stating that I live near Atlanta. It is practicly defined by it's lack of local flavour.
-
In my experience, it rather depends on the street. Granted, my experience with Europe is limited. I've only spent time in Rome and Paris, plus some layover time in Dublin and Dusseldorf. Each seemed very different and distinct, especially the Dusseldorf airport. Has anyone ever been in that airport? That was the most surreal place I have ever seen.
I should also qualify my remarks by stating that I live near Atlanta. It is practicly defined by it's lack of local flavour.
I didn't mean every street. I meant the main drag. The center of the tourist areas. It then branches out from there to cover the shopping areas for the locals. Once malls start showing up it's over.
My point was that with more people spending thier time seeing everything this would speed up and everything would homoginize even further.
-
In my experience, it rather depends on the street. Granted, my experience with Europe is limited. I've only spent time in Rome and Paris, plus some layover time in Dublin and Dusseldorf. Each seemed very different and distinct, especially the Dusseldorf airport. Has anyone ever been in that airport? That was the most surreal place I have ever seen.
I should also qualify my remarks by stating that I live near Atlanta. It is practicly defined by it's lack of local flavour.
I didn't mean every street. I meant the main drag. The center of the tourist areas. It then branches out from there to cover the shopping areas for the locals. Once malls start showing up it's over.
My point was that with more people spending thier time seeing everything this would speed up and everything would homoginize even further.
I think that's the first thing you posted on this thread I disagree with. I think that if there is any sort of substantial (i.e. more than a few hundred) population of wealthy (or affluent middle class) immortals whose existence is not a secret, there will quickly arise an industry of people generating experiences for them. Whether it's ever changing tourist attractions or whatnot, I think there will always be new things to see and do, as long as there are people who can imagine new variations for people to provide.
-
The entire world will just look like a french shopping street or Disney World.
Have you read Cory Doctorow's 'Down and Out in the Magical Kingdom'? From your answer I'm suspecting you have, or we have a nice big coincidence! DOMK is set in Disney World, and humanity has pretty much got the immortaility thing (as in this thread) down pat, except people can be 'backed up' in case of an accident.
His take on how the economy would work is rather interesting. Money and tangible items don't hold value in the same way they do today: the only real currency is 'whoofie' which is related to the respect you have in the community.
You can download the book in pretty well whatever format you prefer here (http://craphound.com/down/download.php).
For stories including person back-ups in case of death and new economies, I love "The Green Leopard Plague (http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0406/greenleopards.shtml)."
-
But this brand of immortality doesn't change that, it only elongates the circle.
There is nothing keep you from getting hit by a car, getting mugged, shot, stabbed, or crushed in a snow cave (http://www.ssqq.com/archive/vinlin10.htm). You have only added years to your life, and you have years enough as it is. If anything this immortality will only let you put it off longer and longer until you end up just another million-to-one anecdote.
agreed. but running the circle 100 times instead of two times would be a definite improvement to me.
Why?
-
There is nothing keep you from getting hit by a car, getting mugged, shot, stabbed, or crushed in a snow cave (http://www.ssqq.com/archive/vinlin10.htm). You have only added years to your life, and you have years enough as it is. If anything this immortality will only let you put it off longer and longer until you end up just another million-to-one anecdote.
You're right. We should ban snow caves, at least.
:D
Ha! Good luck trying to ban snow caves in the US. The special interest groups would never let it happen. Looks like they are trying to ban then in the UK, but only the fake ones.
-
An interesting article about longevity at The Economist here (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10423439). They mention the concept of the "longevity escape velocity." The first longevity treatment you receive may let you live long enough for the next treatment to be developed, and then the next and the next. Then one day you realize it's been 3,000 years, and all of Iapetus looks like a French shopping street.
-
But this brand of immortality doesn't change that, it only elongates the circle.
There is nothing keep you from getting hit by a car, getting mugged, shot, stabbed, or crushed in a snow cave (http://www.ssqq.com/archive/vinlin10.htm). You have only added years to your life, and you have years enough as it is. If anything this immortality will only let you put it off longer and longer until you end up just another million-to-one anecdote.
agreed. but running the circle 100 times instead of two times would be a definite improvement to me.
Why?
Because there are so many things that I would like to do that I wouldn't be able to do them in my normal lifetime, especially if I also want to have a career and a family. 100 years is just not enough to do everything that I would like to do.
When you have "only" 100 years you have to make economical decisions on what things to best spend your time. Maybe I would like to spend 20 years in a Tibetian monastary meditating, but if I do it I won't be able to also have good career in my chosen field.
If you have 1000 years you could simply do both, because 20 years represent a much smaller slice of your complete life expectancy. So you can "waste" your time on things that would be "inefficient" to do because they are not on top of your list.
-
But this brand of immortality doesn't change that, it only elongates the circle.
There is nothing keep you from getting hit by a car, getting mugged, shot, stabbed, or crushed in a snow cave (http://www.ssqq.com/archive/vinlin10.htm). You have only added years to your life, and you have years enough as it is. If anything this immortality will only let you put it off longer and longer until you end up just another million-to-one anecdote.
agreed. but running the circle 100 times instead of two times would be a definite improvement to me.
Why?
Because there are so many things that I would like to do that I wouldn't be able to do them in my normal lifetime, especially if I also want to have a career and a family. 100 years is just not enough to do everything that I would like to do.
When you have "only" 100 years you have to make economical decisions on what things to best spend your time. Maybe I would like to spend 20 years in a Tibetian monastary meditating, but if I do it I won't be able to also have good career in my chosen field.
If you have 1000 years you could simply do both, because 20 years represent a much smaller slice of your complete life expectancy. So you can "waste" your time on things that would be "inefficient" to do because they are not on top of your list.
What about scale?
With 100 years 20 represents a significant portion of time. 1/5 of your life.
With 1000 years 20 represents an insignificant portion of time. 1/50 of your life.
What keeps you from saying "I want to spend 200 years doing this?"
Also, if you're willing to commit an insignificant portion of your infinite life doing something like meditating in a monastery, why not spend an insignificant portion of your current life doing that same thing? Why not spend 2 of your current 100 years meditating?
-
But this brand of immortality doesn't change that, it only elongates the circle.
There is nothing keep you from getting hit by a car, getting mugged, shot, stabbed, or crushed in a snow cave (http://www.ssqq.com/archive/vinlin10.htm). You have only added years to your life, and you have years enough as it is. If anything this immortality will only let you put it off longer and longer until you end up just another million-to-one anecdote.
agreed. but running the circle 100 times instead of two times would be a definite improvement to me.
Why?
Because there are so many things that I would like to do that I wouldn't be able to do them in my normal lifetime, especially if I also want to have a career and a family. 100 years is just not enough to do everything that I would like to do.
When you have "only" 100 years you have to make economical decisions on what things to best spend your time. Maybe I would like to spend 20 years in a Tibetian monastary meditating, but if I do it I won't be able to also have good career in my chosen field.
If you have 1000 years you could simply do both, because 20 years represent a much smaller slice of your complete life expectancy. So you can "waste" your time on things that would be "inefficient" to do because they are not on top of your list.
What about scale?
With 100 years 20 represents a significant portion of time. 1/5 of your life.
With 1000 years 20 represents an insignificant portion of time. 1/50 of your life.
What keeps you from saying "I want to spend 200 years doing this?"
Also, if you're willing to commit an insignificant portion of your infinite life doing something like meditating in a monastery, why not spend an insignificant portion of your current life doing that same thing? Why not spend 2 of your current 100 years meditating?
First, the assessment of significant or insignificant is relative in your example. The amount of time it takes me to see a museum or read a book won't change if I stop aging. I would just be able to do more of it.
Also, I can't even afford to spend two years on a diversion. I don't know what you do for a living, but I would be professionaly and financially ruined if I stopped working for two years. Remember, I've only got another 50 years to live, maybe 60 if I'm lucky. I don't have time to save up the money to do something like that, nor time to recover from the financial problems that it would bring. My wife would probably leave me, too.
With a potentially indefinate life span, there would be nothing to stop me from spending 200 years on a diversion. I could spend however long I needed saving up for the adventure. How cool would it be to have the option? I think that would be great.
A lot of this goes back to my personal opinion that more living is better than less living. I just can't see any personal down-side to living forever.
-
Also, if you're willing to commit an insignificant portion of your infinite life doing something like meditating in a monastery, why not spend an insignificant portion of your current life doing that same thing? Why not spend 2 of your current 100 years meditating?
Because two years of meditation will just be me sitting around beeing bored, but 20 years will mean me achieving enlightenment.
I'm joking, I'm joking.
There are simply so many things that one could do if one had more time. Read every book that has been written. Be an in depth expert(meaning an university education and 20 year working practise) in every field that interests you. See every city on the Earth (and the ones that will pop up on the Moon, Mars, Europa.) I could go on.
To turn this around, do you think that you will be able to achieve everything that you'd like to do in your live in the about 100 years that you have?
-
There are simply so many things that one could do if one had more time. Read every book that has been written. Be an in depth expert(meaning an university education and 20 year working practise) in every field that interests you. See every city on the Earth (and the ones that will pop up on the Moon, Mars, Europa.) I could go on.
I wonder how Xeno's Paradox would be affected if effective time were no longer finite. Could you ever catch up with "every book that has been written"--or would it not matter because you would always have more time later to get to the ones that were written while you were trying to catch up.
-
Also, if you're willing to commit an insignificant portion of your infinite life doing something like meditating in a monastery, why not spend an insignificant portion of your current life doing that same thing? Why not spend 2 of your current 100 years meditating?
Because two years of meditation will just be me sitting around beeing bored, but 20 years will mean me achieving enlightenment.
I'm joking, I'm joking.
There are simply so many things that one could do if one had more time. Read every book that has been written. Be an in depth expert(meaning an university education and 20 year working practise) in every field that interests you. See every city on the Earth (and the ones that will pop up on the Moon, Mars, Europa.) I could go on.
To turn this around, do you think that you will be able to achieve everything that you'd like to do in your live in the about 100 years that you have?
But that's just it, you'll never do everything you want. You'll always have more things to do and not enough time to do them. You will only accomplish relatively more in your extended life.
Also, you haven't added anything that improves your chances of survival. In the long run statistics will catch up with you. Parachutes fail. Wars happen. Growths appear on your neck. (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307406105?tag=scottsigler-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0307406105&adid=0Z0D6ANQBTJATGW068XQ&)
-
But that's just it, you'll never do everything you want. You'll always have more things to do and not enough time to do them. You will only accomplish relatively more in your extended life.
That is exactly my point. I will accomplish more in my extended life. I am aware that I will never be able to do everything I ever wanted. But in 1000 years I would be able to more of the things I'd like to do and I would find that wonderful.
It would be similar to your argument to say: "Well, since you never could do everything you'd like to do it doesn't matter if you had 8 years or 80 years of your life left."
I doubt that you would choose the 8 years over the 80 years. So why would you choose 80 years over 800?
-
But that's just it, you'll never do everything you want. You'll always have more things to do and not enough time to do them. You will only accomplish relatively more in your extended life.
That is exactly my point. I will accomplish more in my extended life. I am aware that I will never be able to do everything I ever wanted. But in 1000 years I would be able to more of the things I'd like to do and I would find that wonderful.
It would be similar to your argument to say: "Well, since you never could do everything you'd like to do it doesn't matter if you had 8 years or 80 years of your life left."
I doubt that you would choose the 8 years over the 80 years. So why would you choose 80 years over 800?
Because of all the global problems that would arise, the grief of losing everyone I know, that if I were immortal but just as frail as I am now fear of death would consume me, and I think suicide is retarded. I would rather have things move on in a natural order.
I'm not eschewing all immortality, just the one you're offering.
-
Because of all the global problems that would arise, the grief of losing everyone I know, that if I were immortal but just as frail as I am now fear of death would consume me, and I think suicide is retarded. I would rather have things move on in a natural order.
I'm not eschewing all immortality, just the one you're offering.
Fair enough. These are all reasons that I can understand, even if I don't necessarily share them or give them the same weight.
-
Because of all the global problems that would arise, the grief of losing everyone I know, that if I were immortal but just as frail as I am now fear of death would consume me, and I think suicide is retarded. I would rather have things move on in a natural order.
I'm not eschewing all immortality, just the one you're offering.
Fair enough. These are all reasons that I can understand, even if I don't necessarily share them or give them the same weight.
Thank you. I feel much the same way about your reasoning and was about to say so.
Also, I'd like to thank you for the topic. Shwankie have been talking about it on and off all week.
-
At the same time, if immortality is widespread and culturally acceptable, it would seem to inevitably lead to over-population, and knock our already non-sustainable way of life totally off balance. There would be horrible resource wars - the only realistic way for an immortal community to survive is to eliminate all the procreators (mortal or immortal), to make sure that the population is stable. Even if this is achieved non-violently, I still don't think I want to live in a world with no children.
I, on the other hand, would find such a world ideal ;D
-
Some issues that I haven't seen brought up in this:
1) You couldn't possibly read every book ever written because the world produces books faster than you can consume them (every book you'd ever want to read might be possible)
2) Immortality wouldn't be a path to becoming an expert in everything. Your brain is only so big. Immortality won't make it bigger and it won't make you smarter - wiser perhaps, but not smarter.
3) Just because you could live forever doesn't mean your memory would last forever. You could end up doing the same things every few hundred years and never know it, or maybe live in constant deja-vu.
All things considered I would still choose to live until Santa's Heat Death villain eats me.
-
Some issues that I haven't seen brought up in this:
1) You couldn't possibly read every book ever written because the world produces books faster than you can consume them (every book you'd ever want to read might be possible)
2) Immortality wouldn't be a path to becoming an expert in everything. Your brain is only so big. Immortality won't make it bigger and it won't make you smarter - wiser perhaps, but not smarter.
3) Just because you could live forever doesn't mean your memory would last forever. You could end up doing the same things every few hundred years and never know it, or maybe live in constant deja-vu.
All things considered I would still choose to live until Santa's Heat Death villain eats me.
Actually, the first one was touched on:
There are simply so many things that one could do if one had more time. Read every book that has been written. Be an in depth expert(meaning an university education and 20 year working practise) in every field that interests you. See every city on the Earth (and the ones that will pop up on the Moon, Mars, Europa.) I could go on.
I wonder how Xeno's Paradox would be affected if effective time were no longer finite. Could you ever catch up with "every book that has been written"--or would it not matter because you would always have more time later to get to the ones that were written while you were trying to catch up.
For number two; the limit for human learning and memory have not yet been found, and I believe number 3 'becoming forgetful with age' has been taken care of by the 'won't suffer from age related illnesses' in the opening premise.
-
Some issues that I haven't seen brought up in this:
1) You couldn't possibly read every book ever written because the world produces books faster than you can consume them (every book you'd ever want to read might be possible)
2) Immortality wouldn't be a path to becoming an expert in everything. Your brain is only so big. Immortality won't make it bigger and it won't make you smarter - wiser perhaps, but not smarter.
3) Just because you could live forever doesn't mean your memory would last forever. You could end up doing the same things every few hundred years and never know it, or maybe live in constant deja-vu.
All things considered I would still choose to live until Santa's Heat Death villain eats me.
Actually, the first one was touched on:
There are simply so many things that one could do if one had more time. Read every book that has been written. Be an in depth expert(meaning an university education and 20 year working practise) in every field that interests you. See every city on the Earth (and the ones that will pop up on the Moon, Mars, Europa.) I could go on.
I wonder how Xeno's Paradox would be affected if effective time were no longer finite. Could you ever catch up with "every book that has been written"--or would it not matter because you would always have more time later to get to the ones that were written while you were trying to catch up.
For number two; the limit for human learning and memory have not yet been found, and I believe number 3 'becoming forgetful with age' has been taken care of by the 'won't suffer from age related illnesses' in the opening premise.
Oh... forgot about number 3... must have a touch of the danged "mad cow"...
-
For number two; the limit for human learning and memory have not yet been found, and I believe number 3 'becoming forgetful with age' has been taken care of by the 'won't suffer from age related illnesses' in the opening premise.
I'm 43. I found my limit at least 15 years ago. I went to college for 8 years and I have 2 degrees (not bragging, just saying). Most of that information is gone. There is only so much information that my brain can hold and it's been full for years. Immortality wouldn't change that. Even if storing information in my brain was perfectly efficient (and I'm sure that it is not), it is only so large, so unless immortality lets me grow more brain space, I'm out of luck.
-
For number two; the limit for human learning and memory have not yet been found, and I believe number 3 'becoming forgetful with age' has been taken care of by the 'won't suffer from age related illnesses' in the opening premise.
I'm 43. I found my limit at least 15 years ago. I went to college for 8 years and I have 2 degrees (not bragging, just saying). Most of that information is gone. There is only so much information that my brain can hold and it's been full for years. Immortality wouldn't change that. Even if storing information in my brain was perfectly efficient (and I'm sure that it is not), it is only so large, so unless immortality lets me grow more brain space, I'm out of luck.
I'm about the same age and am in the same boat (but only 1 degree). Why can't I remember much of the information I learned in college but I can remember worthless trivial things, like the words to Adam Ant's song Goody Two Shoes which I heard in high school. How much capacity does a brain have and how do we determine what is saved and what is lost?
-
For number two; the limit for human learning and memory have not yet been found, and I believe number 3 'becoming forgetful with age' has been taken care of by the 'won't suffer from age related illnesses' in the opening premise.
I'm 43. I found my limit at least 15 years ago. I went to college for 8 years and I have 2 degrees (not bragging, just saying). Most of that information is gone. There is only so much information that my brain can hold and it's been full for years. Immortality wouldn't change that. Even if storing information in my brain was perfectly efficient (and I'm sure that it is not), it is only so large, so unless immortality lets me grow more brain space, I'm out of luck.
I'm about the same age and am in the same boat (but only 1 degree). Why can't I remember much of the information I learned in college but I can remember worthless trivial things, like the words to Adam Ant's song Goody Two Shoes which I heard in high school. How much capacity does a brain have and how do we determine what is saved and what is lost?
My girlfriend wonders how I can't remember when she asks me to get something for her, but I can rattle off elf lineages and the history of Middle Earth. What's worse is when I can remember the location where something important was said, what people were wearing, what I did before and afterwards, but I can't remember the actual important thing.
Moderator: fixed quoting
-
For number two; the limit for human learning and memory have not yet been found, and I believe number 3 'becoming forgetful with age' has been taken care of by the 'won't suffer from age related illnesses' in the opening premise.
I don't think the process of forgetting can be seen as an "age related illness". Nobody, whatever his age can remember everything he does. The brain always sorts things into ones that i stores and things it throws away. If we assume that the amount we can remember is limited then we would remember less and less (for a fixed timespan) the older we get.
What ClintMemo said about living in constant deja-vu sounds plausible to me. It would lead to some interesting searching in one's old blog posts, photos, emails, etc.
"Hmm, I really would like to climb the Everest. Let me see if I already did that."
-
For number two; the limit for human learning and memory have not yet been found, and I believe number 3 'becoming forgetful with age' has been taken care of by the 'won't suffer from age related illnesses' in the opening premise.
I'm 43. I found my limit at least 15 years ago. I went to college for 8 years and I have 2 degrees (not bragging, just saying). Most of that information is gone. There is only so much information that my brain can hold and it's been full for years. Immortality wouldn't change that. Even if storing information in my brain was perfectly efficient (and I'm sure that it is not), it is only so large, so unless immortality lets me grow more brain space, I'm out of luck.
I'm about the same age and am in the same boat (but only 1 degree). Why can't I remember much of the information I learned in college but I can remember worthless trivial things, like the words to Adam Ant's song Goody Two Shoes which I heard in high school. How much capacity does a brain have and how do we determine what is saved and what is lost?
Then again, there's this (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/30/deep-brain-stimulati.html)from Boing Boing. In summary they electrically stimulated a section of a guy's brain and he suddenly vividly experienced a memory from his past. I guess we can only speculate on the accuracy of this memory, though.
It could be that the brain stores everything, but the brain wires itself so that information that's repeated ("Don't drink, don't smoke. What do you do?") becomes more efficiently recalled, while the stuff you learned in college but no longer need gets tucked away like the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders. A zap of electricity in the right spot could force the brain to recall something. Wouldn't it be cool if we could do some kind of virtual reality of our memories?
Things are taught to us in a way that's easy to teach but not so easy to remember. What American who grew up on School House Rock can't recite the Preamble to the Constitution (though doing it without singing is another matter).
-
Nobody, whatever his age can remember everything he does. The brain always sorts things into ones that i stores and things it throws away. If we assume that the amount we can remember is limited then we would remember less and less (for a fixed timespan) the older we get.
I'm not so sure that it is. I remembered this from one of my psychology classes: The Man Who Remembered Everything (http://www.dreamhawk.com/memory.htm)
-
What I wouldn't give for a mental garbage collector....
-
There's definitely lots of things I'd like to delete completely from my brain. Like the theme from "Barney & friends" (Heard it one time and it's in there forever.) :'(
-
There's definitely lots of things I'd like to delete completely from my brain. Like the theme from "Barney & friends" (Heard it one time and it's in there forever.) :'(
Copacabana? Funky Town? Mandy? Girl from Impanema? Anything by the Village People?
All infinitely better than that throbbing purple mound of hate.
-
I have no problem with those examples. I just worry that if I could remove an annoying memory, that having that type of missing piece would cause me to try to find out what was there. Hopefully I would remember to leave a note to help avoid re-acquiring the irritant. (Otherwise; this could become an endless cycle.)
;D
-
I have no problem with those examples. I just worry that if I could remove an annoying memory, that having that type of missing piece would cause me to try to find out what was there. Hopefully I would remember to leave a note to help avoid re-acquiring the irritant. (Otherwise; this could become an endless cycle.)
;D
Hmm, I believe Albus Dumbledore used a Penseive to archive his more important but annoying memories. I wonder what would happen if he archived his memory of where he stored everything?
Depending on how you read The Deathly Hallows he might have been immortal too. Didn't the Jedi figure out that trick?