Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: raygunray on June 24, 2007, 04:35:59 PM
-
Ever since the Highlander series, I've been obsessed with the logistics of being an Immortal. What skills must you acquire and how possible is it to change identities every fifty years or so in this digitized/surveillance minded era?
I surmise it would be much harder thanks to biometric tracking and all the paperwork you need just to rent an apartment. The ability to live off the grid is hard enough today, and I've know people who have done that. It's becoming harder every year.
The skills an immortal must have are:
1. The ability to fake documents or acquire the records of deceased infants replete with social security numbers or the local equivalent.
2. The ability to transfer money from generation to generation. Its much easier to have Swiss, Cayman Islands or offshore accounts with grey market approach to banking. Also, having to will yourself money. Multiple bank accounts under assumed identities. The SEC or IRS increases the risk of having your cover busted.
3. A "suicide plan." - The ability to fake your own death in the case the locals are on to your gift or authorities have an interest in you. A fire or disappearance could take care of this, but plastic surgery many not be an option since you can regenerate.
4. New cover stories for every "life" you live. Why you don't have any family? You're new in town. Where do you hail from?
5. A career path that keeps you on the road and out of sight of authorities. This would be a hard one. Perhaps being an itinerant carpenter or and under-the-table trade. I met a transsexual male who avoided the hassle of explaining his gender change by working as a construction worker and jack-of-all-trades. Thus, he avoided most discrimination and kept him off the grid.
Those are a few skills.
-
the bigist problem whith an imortalaty plan is the posabilaty of geting stuck some whare , spending a 1000 years in a box at the botom of the see or floting thrue space wuld be a real drag
-
the bigist problem whith an imortalaty plan is the posabilaty of geting stuck some whare , spending a 1000 years in a box at the botom of the see or floting thrue space wuld be a real drag
Of course, those are problems for the rest of us, too. Maybe not so much the space thing.
I always thought procrastination would be the big problem.
-
the bigist problem whith an imortalaty plan is the posabilaty of geting stuck some whare , spending a 1000 years in a box at the botom of the see or floting thrue space wuld be a real drag
Of course, those are problems for the rest of us, too. Maybe not so much the space thing.
I always thought procrastination would be the big problem.
I'll get around to it next year century.
-
Move to any third-world country.
Establish yourself as an eccentric rich-guy who the locals never see.
Kill anyone who gets too nosey.
The end.
-
Well. Being someone who wholly intends to live forever, I don't think it'll be such an issue soon. With advances in cryonics and nanotechnology, immortals will just become part of the crowd.
-
You're assuming an immortal human is still human.
-
You're assuming an immortal human is still human.
As this was started with the Highlander kind of immortality, and since Highlanders can breed with mortal humans, then yes. They're still human.
On the other hand, if you want to expand the definition of "immortal" then we can explore the idea of humanity.
-
You're assuming an immortal human is still human.
As this was started with the Highlander kind of immortality, and since Highlanders can breed with mortal humans, then yes. They're still human.
On the other hand, if you want to expand the definition of "immortal" then we can explore the idea of humanity.
I wouldn't call it breeding since they can't reproduce (although Highlander 5 would question that notion).
I think after a while immortality would get boring. Why do so many immortals turn evil? Because good isn't very interesting. I'm sure vampires have the same concerns, although they tend to be more concerned with finding trustworthy servants to watch over them while they're dead for the day.
-
Would someone who was immortal still be psychologically human? A human only lives about 80 years: Would the desires and values that drive a person through that life-span be effective to keep them going for 800 or 8000 years? Aging is a big part of life. Can you eliminate it without serious side effects?
My answer is no: I think a person who was immortal would have to either A.) become thoroughly decadent (evil) or B.) become non-human. You see that in Tolkien. Races that are naturally immortal, like the elves or the Valar, posses minds and inclinations that are distinctly non-human and are suited for long eons of not much changing. They are not ambitious and are content to meditate upon a single thing for years on end. The mortal races (men, dwarves) are not mentally suited for immortality, and those who try to become immortal become evil. That's how Numenor fell: Sauron tempted the humans with immortality and lust for it led to the destruction of their civilization.
I've got a sketch in mind for a sci-fi trilogy that still needs about 80,000 hours of work, but the heros in it are mortal and proud of it. Immortality is a viable option, but they consider it an abomination. The immortals are worthless and occupy their time with two things 1.) making damn sure no one figures out a way to kill them and 2.) trying ever more desperate ways to make being alive anything other than torturous tedium.
-
"Noah died 350 years after the Flood, at the age of 950,[8] the last of the immensely long-lived antediluvian Patriarchs. The maximum human lifespan, as depicted by the Bible, diminishes rapidly thereafter, from as much as 900 years to the 120 years of Moses within just a few generations."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah
-
"Noah died 350 years after the Flood, at the age of 950,[8] the last of the immensely long-lived antediluvian Patriarchs. The maximum human lifespan, as depicted by the Bible, diminishes rapidly thereafter, from as much as 900 years to the 120 years of Moses within just a few generations."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah
Ha ha! Now who's bringing up religion? ;)
That, actually, is something that has fascinated me and is part of what makes me think as I do. The evil that was so disgusting that God just had to wipe it out was perpetrated by people who were living 800+ years. I guess people can get really good at being bad if given time to practice.
-
"Noah died 350 years after the Flood, at the age of 950,[8] the last of the immensely long-lived antediluvian Patriarchs. The maximum human lifespan, as depicted by the Bible, diminishes rapidly thereafter, from as much as 900 years to the 120 years of Moses within just a few generations."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah
My rabbi once said that in the Old Testament, there may have been a mistranslation -- where they really meant months instead of years in some places where people lived a very long time. (ie: Abraham's wife Sarah gave birth to Isaac at age 99? But 99/12 = 8, so that can't possibly be biologically possible, can it?) Maybe years were measured differently back then. *shrug*
-
"Noah died 350 years after the Flood, at the age of 950,[8] the last of the immensely long-lived antediluvian Patriarchs. The maximum human lifespan, as depicted by the Bible, diminishes rapidly thereafter, from as much as 900 years to the 120 years of Moses within just a few generations."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah
Ha ha! Now who's bringing up religion? ;)
That, actually, is something that has fascinated me and is part of what makes me think as I do. The evil that was so disgusting that God just had to wipe it out was perpetrated by people who were living 800+ years. I guess people can get really good at being bad if given time to practice.
Ahh. Neatly parried! I hadn't considered that the other people of the earth were also long-lived, just that a few famous ones were. So, yes, it appears that long life can cause problems. Though I still don't see that how you would consider them to be psychologically non-human any more than a schizophrenic would be.
And no, I don't mean to bring god in to this, just referencing a popular and well-read book that you support thinking that it might supported a counter-argument of mine. Bringing god in to it would have been saying why they lived so long. ;)
-
Though I still don't see that how you would consider them to be psychologically non-human any more than a schizophrenic would be.
Let me clarify: For an immortal person to be functional, they would have to become non-human. A schizophrenic can't relate to others or to the world in a useful way. Their psychology is non-functional.
-
Though I still don't see that how you would consider them to be psychologically non-human any more than a schizophrenic would be.
Let me clarify: For an immortal person to be functional, they would have to become non-human. A schizophrenic can't relate to others or to the world in a useful way. Their psychology is non-functional.
Ok. I think I get what you're saying: The psychological state of an immortal race would be so drastically different from that of modern earth-based mortals that it should be considered non-human.
If that's accurate, then what I don't get is why?
-
"Noah died 350 years after the Flood, at the age of 950,[8] the last of the immensely long-lived antediluvian Patriarchs. The maximum human lifespan, as depicted by the Bible, diminishes rapidly thereafter, from as much as 900 years to the 120 years of Moses within just a few generations."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah
Ha ha! Now who's bringing up religion? ;)
That, actually, is something that has fascinated me and is part of what makes me think as I do. The evil that was so disgusting that God just had to wipe it out was perpetrated by people who were living 800+ years. I guess people can get really good at being bad if given time to practice.
Ahh. Neatly parried! I hadn't considered that the other people of the earth were also long-lived, just that a few famous ones were. So, yes, it appears that long life can cause problems. Though I still don't see that how you would consider them to be psychologically non-human any more than a schizophrenic would be.
And no, I don't mean to bring god in to this, just referencing a popular and well-read book that you support thinking that it might supported a counter-argument of mine. Bringing god in to it would have been saying why they lived so long. ;)
OK confirmation class was a long time ago , but the reverend did hit on this. The theological idea was that a person of standing in those times would say there age as family age and not personal age.
Example: Family Smith (a very biblical name) is always poor and uneducated. Family Smith doesn't have the capability to keep a family age. Then John Smith somehow moves up the ladder. He can get his boy educated. The boy would take his father's age at his birth, say 20, and adds it to his age, say 15, so he is 35. He doesn't add granddad at all, because nobody knows how old he was and he was a loser. So the boy has a son, Steve, when the boy is "40". When we would call Steve 20, he's calling himself 60.
Saying Noah was 950 says that Noahs family was old and most likely very respected. Since Yahweh wanted his message to be followed and respected he didn't go to the town drunk he went to the best family around. Also the best family around would have the resources to build the ark.
-
I think after a while immortality would get boring. Why do so many immortals turn evil? Because good isn't very interesting. I'm sure vampires have the same concerns, although they tend to be more concerned with finding trustworthy servants to watch over them while they're dead for the day.
I disagree with several of these premises. I know that it's common practice to portray immortals as filled with ennui, jaded and having seen/done everything before, but I don't think this is an accurate portrayal. If you're not positing someone who is undead, and therefore forced into a static state (which, granted, is the commonest form of immortality but perhaps not the 'Highlander' or Tolkien elf version currently under discussion), then there's no reason to expect that people wouldn't continue to change as they aged, even over hundreds of years. Riding a bike is not the same at 10 as it is at 30, and not just because of physical aptitude. It's different because you're different when you're 10 than when you're 30. They say your tastebuds are completely renewed roughly every seven years. I bet you can think, easily, of a dozen things you ate a decade ago that you wouldn't dream of eating today, and likewise things you eat and enjoy regularly that an earlier you would have found disgusting. I bet you can even think of things you used to eat which, when you eat them now, taste different. The same goes for any sort of art you enjoy or practice. People change and reinvent themselves all the time. It's far more challenging to remain the same than it is to change. Very few of us die (or lose our minds) from boredom. I don't believe this would suddenly change if people were to become immortal.
It is culturally assumed that people become adults and are somehow fixed at that point in personality, temperament, tastes, whatever. It seems to be necessary to a sense of self to anchor identity in our habits and a fixed personhood. We develop philosophies. We talk about ourselves as if the current self is the only self. But really, there's nothing fixed about us, we change all the time. We are not the same people we were, and will not be the same people tomorrow, whether that tomorrow is one or one thousand days away. The idea of our lives as a flow of the same being through time may well be flawed.
If you believe technology is moving our lives toward ever faster change, as some do, there's less every day to be bored with. I love living in the future, and I bet I'd love it even more in a hundred years, and even more in five hundred years. Joie de vivre and long life are not mutually exclusive.
I also disagree with the premise that good is not interesting. I'll grant you that storytelling without conflict is flat, and conflict often requires sides, but to extend that to actual existence oversimplifies by squishing life into story, where it has never fit well. If good were so uninteresting, most people would not spend so much time defining themselves as good people.
-
(all the stuff Anarkey said here)
When I think of an artificially-created immortality, I think of the magazine photos that disgrace every supermarket: A woman who is perpetually 23, gorgeous, smiling, forever and forever. To me, physical immortality necessarily implies that one's body stops at some set, supposedly perfect point. At my unrewarding newspaper job, I am currently working on an ad for botox: "Turn back the clock." Stop.
I totally agree with all the things you said about things being different at different times. The bike ride is different when you're ten than when you're thirty. That difference, that progression, is a big part of what makes human life what it is. When I think of immortality, I think of that progression stopping. You don't change: You stay 23 like the woman in the CoverGirl ad, and so you never find out what stuff tastes like with 30-year-old taste buds. Our culture is enamored with that idea, but I think it would suck.
...Okay, I think I see where we diverge now. I see the progression of aging as necessary for experiencing the different phases of life. I think you need to actually be 10 and 30 in order to appreciate bike-riding from those perspectives. You think you could be immortal (keep a 23-year-old body) but still experience a mental progression. Is that right?
And, no, good is not boring. Evil is boring. (To wax philosophical: Evil exists only as the opposite of good. Good exists of itself.)
-
I think you need to actually be 10 and 30 in order to appreciate bike-riding from those perspectives.
I've seen eight year olds act like adults and adults act like eight year olds, so I tend to disagree.
-
When I think of an artificially-created immortality, I think of the magazine photos that disgrace every supermarket: A woman who is perpetually 23, gorgeous, smiling, forever and forever. To me, physical immortality necessarily implies that one's body stops at some set, supposedly perfect point. At my unrewarding newspaper job, I am currently working on an ad for botox: "Turn back the clock." Stop.
I'd like to stop when I get to about 42. I think that's a good age, provided my hair just turns a little gray rather than going completely away.
One wonders... if you stop when you get to that magical age -- ie, when you're a Highlander, it appears to be the age at which you first die -- can you change your appearance? Can you gain or lose weight? Grow out your hair or cut it short? Get a tan? If I was 42 and weighed 300 pounds (and was not seven feet tall), I might be pretty ambivalent.
And what about illnesses/diseases you might have? You can't die, but it doesn't necessarily mean you're in perfect health. Imagine being immortal and having a heart condition where you're short of breath or something.
-
I suspect it's a mix of the two.
Starting with the assumption that immortality means stopping the aging process at some moment in time and the mind is still growing with experience, or aging, then the person can continue to develop.
As big things imitate small the mental development of an immortal is probably going to follow the same trends we see in children as they age. Starting with infancy, where the immortal is discovering and learning, on to childhood where they explore this big world, teen-age rebellion, maturity, and eventually wisdom... only this will be stretched out over millennia.
-
They say The Doctor's around 900, granted, he's not technically human. But he's still a good character, though his wrath is fairly biblical. I don't think age makes good men evil. I'm not sure every person could live forever and stay sane. But there's a subset of the population who could.
-
I think you need to actually be 10 and 30 in order to appreciate bike-riding from those perspectives.
I've seen eight year olds act like adults and adults act like eight year olds, so I tend to disagree.
That's totally tangent to my (and Anarkey's?) point. Sure lots of adults aren't mature and lots of kids are, but we're talking about individual life-lines. An individual will not be the same when they are 8 as when they are an adult.
I think (speculatively) that mental development is linked to aging. When we are children we say "I am a child" and others say "you are a child" and that shapes our experience. When we have kids we say "I am a parent." Etc. Our place in the progression of life shapes the way we think of the present.
Also, the idea of legacy is huge in human thought. All but the very shallowest people are concerned with how they will be remembered after death and how their actions while living will effect the future. The fact that we could die at any time serves to remind us to live well in this moment, and the fact that we only get a certain amount of time deeply effects our planning and prioritizing.
A person who was immortal would be divorced from these progressions. "I am a child" or "I am a parent" or "I am an elder" would mean nothing to them, and there would be no concern for legacy.
-
I think (speculatively) that mental development is linked to aging. When we are children we say "I am a child" and others say "you are a child" and that shapes our experience. When we have kids we say "I am a parent." Etc. Our place in the progression of life shapes the way we think of the present.
I agree.
Also, the idea of legacy is huge in human thought. All but the very shallowest people are concerned with how they will be remembered after death and how their actions while living will effect the future. The fact that we could die at any time serves to remind us to live well in this moment, and the fact that we only get a certain amount of time deeply effects our planning and prioritizing.
And a lot of that planning and prioritizing goes to "What will make me happier?" not "What is the better option?" Maybe with longer lives more thought will be put in to the future?
A person who was immortal would be divorced from these progressions. "I am a child" or "I am a parent" or "I am an elder" would mean nothing to them, and there would be no concern for legacy.
How do you justify this?
As the immortals are usually adults they will have already been a child, been an adult, been a parent, and my even consider themselves elders after a time. I don't see how immortality could strip a person of milestones already passed. Even if a child were born of an immortal race (say elves) they would still grow to maturity, though the terrible 2s might last 2000 years. They will still be assigned, and pass through, all the normal stages of development.
Perhaps you are thinking of "eternal" creatures, those who don't have a beginning or ending, so they weren't ever "young" and won't ever be "old"?
-
:D You're right there. Just because people have limited time doesn't seem to motivate them to make good choices, does it? "I could die tomorrow: Better pack as much thoughtless petty selfishness into this day as possible!"
Your idea about the terrible 2s lasting 2000 years backs up what I'm saying about immortals needing a non-human psychology. A human who spends more than a few years in the terrible 2s is labeled "retarded" or "handicapped." A race that considers such behavior normal has diverged quite a ways from human thinking.
I think concern for the future would be tied to the definition of "immortal." Tolkien's elves would have a natural concern for the future because, although they do not age, they will die if their environment becomes too hostile. They still have to do things in order to survive. A being that was truly immune to death, though, would not have such concerns.
-
Before jumping in with my ideas, I'd thought I'd mention Gulliver's Travels - there being immortal was something of a curse because you never die, but you did continue to age. You ended up a decrepit lump - very scary.
I side strongly with Anacky on the joy of being alive. There are many stories of long-lived "shepards" of families where an immortal keeps tabs and helps out. I'm also thinking "Requiem for Methuselah" from Star Trek. Imagine continuing your passion for painting or composing or writing. Though the distraction of procrastination might make it hard to actually get any of it done ;)
So to pull it back more to Raygunray's original posting; have a strong bond with your family - they'll take care of you, and give you something to live for. Even if you remain "static", you would find purpose in that.
I have a story-in-progress (aren't they all) where immortality leads to two societies - Gears and Tanners. Essentially Gears (corruption of engineer) want to accomplish something with their lives and Tanners (from going to the beach and get a tan) are happy enough to live their lives in pleasurable pursuits.
Before the discussion gets into the nitty gritty, the definition of how you are immortal is important. Being aware at an early age will have a serious impact on how you think. Long term planning of elves only looks that way to us - same as a Mayfly (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=913.0) thinks we are long lived. And technically vampires are not immortal, they can die. Vampires just don't age, sort of. Some literature explains that they "purify" as time goes on and change, but I see them more like trees than true immortals.
-
I think you need to actually be 10 and 30 in order to appreciate bike-riding from those perspectives.
I've seen eight year olds act like adults and adults act like eight year olds, so I tend to disagree.
That's totally tangent to my (and Anarkey's?) point. Sure lots of adults aren't mature and lots of kids are, but we're talking about individual life-lines. An individual will not be the same when they are 8 as when they are an adult.
My point is that physical age does not always correspond to maturity. My late father-in-law was about as mature as a stereotypical American teenage boy. (I don't want to go into details - just apply all the negative stereotypes to a 65 year-old man and you get the picture.).
Yes, at 65, he was physically different than he was at 15, but mentally? not so much.
I think (speculatively) that mental development is linked to aging. When we are children we say "I am a child" and others say "you are a child" and that shapes our experience. When we have kids we say "I am a parent." Etc. Our place in the progression of life shapes the way we think of the present.
Also, the idea of legacy is huge in human thought. All but the very shallowest people are concerned with how they will be remembered after death and how their actions while living will effect the future. The fact that we could die at any time serves to remind us to live well in this moment, and the fact that we only get a certain amount of time deeply effects our planning and prioritizing.
A person who was immortal would be divorced from these progressions. "I am a child" or "I am a parent" or "I am an elder" would mean nothing to them, and there would be no concern for legacy.
Getting caught up in "Legacies" can also be hugely destructive. That's what most real world evil dictators do.
And are we talking about "never growing old" or "cannot die"? They would have completely different effects on a person. I could see a person who cannot die being apathetic about everything whereas a person who merely never ages might become obsessed with their own personal safety.
-
I don't see maturity being tied to physical age that closely. Much of it results from personal experience and inner reflection. I think if we had a race of beings who aged more slowly to physical adulthood, it would introduce a lot of problems compared to our current society. Imagine beings that were physically nine but mentally forty.
I would suspect that if we ever did achieve immortality, it would be through replacement parts - when an organ goes bad, you can replace it with a spare. If you could include skin in that, then you might appear not to age, but it would only be an illusion. However, until you can stop the brain from deteriorating, I suspect that the best you can do is put off death for a few more decades.
I agree that having immortality would be intolerable without some kind of purpose. It is not uncommon now for elderly people to kill themselves when they feel they no longer have any reason to live.
-
I have a story-in-progress (aren't they all) ...
I have a story that I finished, but have never submitted anywhere, about a world with a handful of people who stop aging. One of the central plot elements has to do with combating boredom. I've been reading this thread with some interest to see how many ideas run parallel with (or contradict) what is in my story.
Ok, show of hands.
How many people have either written or thought up a story surrounding an immortal character?
-
I have. As I mentioned before, my immortals are bad guys and heroes are mortal by choice.
-
Which just makes me think that the bad guys would be better off getting some DVD box sets, a nice TV and then take the slow boat to Alpha Centauri and back.
-
You're assuming an immortal human is still human.
Right, we got side-tracked pretty early and pretty hard.
Back to the original derail: It doesn't matter if immortal humans are immortal or not, they're trying to survive on earth and it is populated with humans.
I think the originating question is how you would survive/pass the years, not what constitutes being an immortal.
-
I think I'd just live my life. When the government guy showed up to ask how I could be 150, I'd just tell him someone must have hacked his computer and messed with his data. "No, it's OK you can keep the social security check."
-
I think a lot of "how would you survive?" is based on how common immortality is. Vampires and the like have to hide but if immortality is achieved by some medical breakthrough, then you wouldn't need to hide. Anyone with the cash could become immortal. I suspect that if that happens, then retirement would become a financial impossibility for most people. In a word with few immortals, someone could work for 50 years and then spend eternity living off the interest. But if immortals were common, you could never reach a point where most of the population was retired. An economy could not sustain that. The amount of wealth you would have to accumulate would get forever larger until it became almost unachievable.
-
I have. As I mentioned before, my immortals are bad guys and heroes are mortal by choice.
An immortal hero who couldn't be killed in any way shape or form would be boring. The reason Highlander works is because MacLeod can die. Vampires can be protagonists because they can be killed by the sun or silver or stakes through the heart. But if Indiana Jones was immortal, what would the point be? There'd be no real danger to him.
-
I have. As I mentioned before, my immortals are bad guys and heroes are mortal by choice.
An immortal hero who couldn't be killed in any way shape or form would be boring. The reason Highlander works is because MacLeod can die. Vampires can be protagonists because they can be killed by the sun or silver or stakes through the heart. But if Indiana Jones was immortal, what would the point be? There'd be no real danger to him.
Indiana Jones isn't immortal???!!?? He did go 1000 miles underwater on the outside of a U-Boat.
-
I think I'd just live my life. When the government guy showed up to ask how I could be 150, I'd just tell him someone must have hacked his computer and messed with his data. "No, it's OK you can keep the social security check."
Right on.
I'd do the opposite of "Mayfly". I'd keep a low profile, and switch countries every few years.
People go missing all the time, and the world is full of undocumented people.
As for the day-to-day, I'd get a job in something like technology, where young people with a lot of skill is normal, and it isn't so difficult to get a job.
If I wanted to be the rich immortal, I'd set up corporations that funnel money in to my various personas around the world. If I'm in Spain, I'm one guy. If I'm in India, I'm another. They could all make donations to a religious foundation. That foundation would pool the money and invest it. The money made off of that would go to pay for my mansions ("temples") around the world.
-
That sounds way to well-planned to have just come of the top of your head. Just how do you know so much about this topic? Are you hiding something?
-
That sounds way to well-planned to have just come of the top of your head. Just how do you know so much about this topic? Are you hiding something?
Lets just say 'I've been around.'
-
The way I figure I'd love to live forever; if I ever should become utterly bored with life I'm sure I can find a way out.
-
I think a lot of "how would you survive?" is based on how common immortality is. Vampires and the like have to hide but if immortality is achieved by some medical breakthrough, then you wouldn't need to hide.
Oooh! Love the idea. It may be a commonplace but I haven't seen it before. Sadly, I can't see how it could sustain a story on its own but it would make a lovely background detail: the freaky immortal who's become accustomed to moving between communities can finally settle down when humans crack the problem. Would they be helping us in our research?
-
I think a lot of "how would you survive?" is based on how common immortality is. Vampires and the like have to hide but if immortality is achieved by some medical breakthrough, then you wouldn't need to hide.
Oooh! Love the idea. It may be a commonplace but I haven't seen it before. Sadly, I can't see how it could sustain a story on its own but it would make a lovely background detail: the freaky immortal who's become accustomed to moving between communities can finally settle down when humans crack the problem. Would they be helping us in our research?
Assuming immortality were achievable through some type of procedure, it would almost certainly be very expensive, at least at first. Immortality would be worth more the more rare that it is. At least some current immortals would work very hard to keep others from becoming immortal because it would dilute the relative value of their immortality. Feed that to your inner conspiracy theorist and plots abound.
-
Does anybody listen to The Classic Tales podcast? The most recent story was "The Mortal Immortal" by Marry Shelly. I thought it was good (better than Frankenstein, certainly), and it presents what I think is the realistic view of this subject.
Just a heads-up.
Geez, she was 19 when she wrote Frankenstein? I need to get busy.
-
Does anybody listen to The Classic Tales podcast?
Thanks Mr. Tweedy for pointing me to another great fiction podcast. Great classics! Here's the link (http://classictales.podshowcreator.com/) if anybody else is interested.
-
Cool topic and discussion. I recently read a book called "The First Immortal" by James Halperin. I thought the book was good, not great but it held my attention. It is about the first man to be cryonically suspended in the 80's and wakes up in 2072. The book address the science of cryonics, the ethical debate of the science, the money / investment issue and family issues. The vision of the future is a bit overly optimistic, IMO. Truth machines (the subject of another of his books) make crime not pay and nanotechnology solves many health problems. Not a bad read if you are really in to the subject, although it was written in 1998 so some "future" happenings are a bit dated.