Would you like to be immortal?

[sirana]

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.

[eytanz]

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.

[Loz]

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.

[sirana]

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.

[sirana]

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.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

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.

[Russell Nash]

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.

[eytanz]

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.

[Ocicat]

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.

[sirana]

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.

[wakela]

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).

[eytanz]

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.

[ajames]

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.

[Darwinist]

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.     

[wakela]

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." 

[FamilyGuy]

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.

[Russell Nash]

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.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

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!

[ClintMemo]

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.

[gelee]

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.

[sirana]

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?

[Russell Nash]

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.

[sirana]

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. 

[Thaurismunths]

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?

[sirana]

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.