Would you become immortal, if you had the choice?

Cool response, JL.

What did you mean by "death as a negative state of existence"? Just that people view it negatively, or something else?

I like to see life as the meaningful part, not the death. It lets me live life, not anticipate death. (Two very different things).

Thanks, Taliesin. Yes, I mean as people view it. I think most people--when they do not believe in an afterlife (either heaven/hell or reincarnation)--conceptualize death as a negative STATE of non-being. Yet they impllicitly see themselves as continuing to exist in the negative "state" of oblivion. As I see it, this makes no sense. After dying there can no longer be anyone to occupy a "state" of death. Death cannot be a conditon of something that does not exist.

Most people view death as an end. That by itself is not entirely wrong, but quite often the end of a process is the start of another. When we "die", our body is decomposed into its constituents, which return to earth. Some of the constituents may be sucked up by trees, others may infiltrate water sources, others may even be scattered by the wind... and so a new cycle of life starts from what died. So I see life and death as cycles of change, from one form to another. Now back to the immortality issue... Since we come from our parents, and they came from their parents, and so on so forth, it's not far fetch to say that we retain at least some of our ancestors, hence they continue to live on, in us. We carry some of their DNA with us. That makes them "immortal", they live on through their children... We do the same by hopefully tranferring our DNA to our children before we "die".

Who are you to say there's no chance of immortality? You can't see into the future. Your opinion is just that - an uninformed opinion with no basis in fact. You are no different from the man who said "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

The reality is that, at some point in the future, a way to defeat the aging process may be discovered. You can stomp your feet and insist otherwise all you like. But the possibility remains. There are always bigoted naysayers who insist that something can never be done. But don't delude yourself into thinking you are anything more than that. At least you are are aptly named - Nobody.

I voted Yes. Of course I want to live forever. To those who say "it will get boring," if you're that pathetic, why not just end your lives now? Our planet is already too crowded. I do want to live forever. But I don't want to share this earth with morons who could get terminally bored with our wondrous universe. Our infinite cosmos is infinitely interesting - except to the feeble minded.

Formicidae, gee if I knew you were THAT afraid of death, I would have said that all men are mortal EXCEPT for Formicidae. I hope you are not too threatened by the OPINIONS of us "bigoted" (you should look up the word's meaning) naysaying nobodies, and pathetic morons.

bach-vu. Your points are well taken, as far as they go.

The fear of death has nothing to do with my observations. Practical immortality is a possibility. Discoveries are made, advances accomplished. Even revolutionary ones. To ignore this makes you a pessimist, not a realist.



I know the meaning of "bigoted", and it fits you to a tee. Despite the fact that immortality is possible, that you cannot see into the future, you insist that "it'll never happen." That's just as bigoted -- and stupid -- as the people who insisted that supersonic travel would always be impossible.



What word other than "pathetic" is more appropriate for those who would be bored with immortality? Such people are blind to the world's wonders -- couch potatoes with the combined attention span of a turnip. We live in an infinite universe of dazzling possibilities. If you think it's boring, there's something wrong with you, not the universe.

Formaldahyde, I admit that I cannot possibly know what we will know in the future; if I did it would not be future knowledge--it would be present knowledge (didn't mean to insult you with the explanation). I do think that with time people will live longer, but that is just postponing the inevitable. Immortality would be, if achieved, a major demographic catastrophy for humankind. We would have major problems with population management, with the prohibition of new births and the like.
Let me just end this response with the observation that while I do not know you, I confidently say that your behavior is that of a bona fide jerk. I've not said ( or recall saying) that to or about anyone on A2K before. So congratulations on being a first.

Hey JL. Just checked on the meaning of bigot (and was surprised that it varied a little from what I thought it meant). Do you find it amusing that the meaning "One intolerant of opinions other than their own." would fit Formicidae's reaction to your opinion on the impracticability of immortality perfectly?

I do.

Yeah, but you're full of it too. I'm completely tolerant of JL's opinions -- I just think they're ridiculous. Which they are. After all, here you have a true bigot who proclaims that Immortality Will Always Be Impossible, as if he can see into the future.

As for the morons who say they'd be bored by immortality, I'm tolerant of their opinions as well. I just pose the simple question: if you think life is so boring, why not kill yourselves now? The world would certainly be better off without such dull people.

Phewff... When I first read that I thought it was JL responding, then to my relief I saw that it was you. I actually care about JLs opinion of me, because they've earned my respect over the course of our discussions. You may comment on me perhaps when you know me a little better and I'll take it more seriously.



<sigh> Have you ever considered that that isn't particularly tolerant of their opinions? I mean, I understand, I'm always right myself and I never respect anyone elses opinions if they disagree with me. But at least I admit that that makes me a bigot.

JL thinks immortality is impossible and that anyone who thinks otherwise is fanciful. You think that immortality is going to occur and anyone who thinks otherwise is a backwards conservative thinker. Perhaps JL isn't tolerant of your opinion, but you aren't tolerant of theirs either. So perhaps you're both bigots.

But you seem to be the one being a hypocrite.



Here's a tip. Insulting people and suggesting they commit suicide is not tolerant of their opinions.

Yours,
The AntiBuddha. (Bigot since 1984 and damn proud of it).

P.S. The irony is that I agree with you. It's impossible to imagine what technology the human race could achieve over the next billion years. I just also happen to agree with JL that you're acting like a bit of a jerk.

Immortality. If it were a question of, "Should we institute immortality on a broad scale, assuming it became feasible?" then obviously not. We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot with the overpopulation argument. If it were a question of "Hey silversturm, you want to live forever?", which is what I think the topic is about, then I'd have to do some thinking.

For me, it would come down to a choice to make a sacrifice. The sacrifice: to choose yes.

The upside... I believe that for the right person to become immortal, it would be beneficial to the human race. I say 'right' to distinguish between an immortal who stays at home and sleeps while the human race lives and dies and one who promotes the human race.

The downside... It would be very difficult to see everyone you know perish - time and again. It would be very difficult psychologically when you're floating towards Tau Ceti once Earth has been blown up by space aliens (what would you do with all that free time?).

To be immortal would represent such an opportunity for good. Yes this is an idealistic argument. Point: acquisition of knowledge. When do they say that the last person who knew everything in the world died? How much knowledge can a human today attain before his/her death? Will we reach a threshold where the technology is so advanced that it takes a full lifetime just to understand what we have, thus limiting what further inventions we can produce? (These are meant just to highlight the issue; obviously one can make arguments for continual technological advancement)

If a person could learn and continue to learn forever, and that person has a pro-human spirit, that person could do things like (again idealistic) try to unite us as a race, help people better understand themselves, and further the technological advancement of the race (assuming such is positive, which I think it is). Such a person could practically contribute in every aspect of society. I'll leave all the details out so as not to bore anyone but this is the first thing that comes to my mind if someone posed said question to me.

As for non-sci-fi attaining of immortality, I cannot agree. Huge life-prolongment sure, but unless they find a substitute for oxygen & blood, completely changing our physiological processes, then we won't live very long once if our ecosystem changes and in an extreme matter Earth is destroyed (again just used to highlight that floating in space would not be fun ).

The following eloquently describes an intelligent person's view of immortality:

"I've never read a play by Aristophanes. I've never studied any Asian language. I don't understand anything about ballet, or lacrosse, or meteorology. I can't read music. I can't play the drums." Laughter again. "I want to write a novel and a sonnet and a song. Yes, they'll all stink, but eventually I'll learn to do them well. I want to learn to paint and to appreciate opera and to really understand quantum physics. I want to read all the great books, and all the trashy ones, too. I want to learn about Buddhism and Judaism and Seventh Day Adventists. I want to visit Australia and Japan and the Galapagos. I want to go into space. I want to go the bottom of the ocean. I want to learn it all, do it all, live it all. Immortality boring? Impossible. Even the lifetime of the universe may not be enough to do all the things I want to do."

From 'Virtual Taros'

THANKS, Antibuddha. I appreciate your effort. I was objecting not to Formicdae's thinking (I simply disagree with his or her thesis; I never said it was "ridiculous"); I was objecting to his/her interactional style. Insults are not what A2K is about. The idea of immortality does not enrage me; it just doesn't seem plausible for a number of reasons. And by the way, I don't think anyone has expressed a lack of appreciation for the wonders of nature.

"Just hatched" and already making a total ass of him/herself. Hmmm. Who left the gate open?

Formicidae, if you stay on this site long enough, you will discover that your tone is entirely inappropriate. This is not a pre-teen chat room where gratuitous insults are flung about at random. The moderators here try to maintain at least a modicum of common decency and acceptable manners. Neither JLNobody nor anyone else was necessarily disagreeing with your opinions. You could show the same level of respect for theirs.

Again, for a newcomer your tone, attitude and behavior are inappropriate and unacceptable.

He's talking about the poll results in which 30 odd percent of people said they'd get bored with immortality. It's okay, I speak jerk... I can translate

I stand corrected. I didn't read the poll.

I see that a quarter of those polled think they would become bored with immortality. That's possible, but I don't think we can predict such a thing with great confidence (and it would take an indefinite amount of time to test the prediction). Just as I am correctly told I cannot predict the future of technology relative to human longevity, we cannot predict that we will always find life worth living. So there is presumption on both sides.

What happens if there are no longer "reasons" to live? What happens if mankind just simply cannot go any further with their advancement? Assumptions: peak of technological and geographical advancement/expanse and an overall declining quality of life.

Will a person's instinct still drive him/her to continue? Is that the nature of life, to continue, to survive? From what I've seen of nature I would agree with that - a person naturally is driven to continue.

Extraneous circumstances in a person's life can lead that person into depression and a lost reason for life, possibly wanting to take his/her own life. Could that happen on a global scale if the circumstances were correct? (I know it's a little off topic but after thinking about living for so long, this seemed to be relevent)

Hey guys, I've been out with the flu for the weekend, so I missed this entire thing.

Formicidae: I'm going to have to side with JL and antibuddha on this one. While I understand the desire to make a point, your use of aggressive wording and general thesis of "I'm right; everyone else is wrong" is counter-productive.
While I agree with you on the point that immortality probably will be a possibility one day, you've overlooked the negatives of such a discovery. The human drive to achieve would be significantly reduced in our procrastinator's society, and eventually, there would be a limit to what you can achieve, or how fast you can achieve it. Add to this JL's point about over-population and, more importantly, population control, and you've got a problem.
I would aim for an extended lifetime in place of an endless one, because I think death is a definer for life: setting boundaries, placing a bit of pressure and motivation, and enabling change. So much of art and culture would be erased by the removal of death from the equation.

If you have counter-points, I'd still be glad to hear them, but in the future please try to remain civil, since its precisely that sort of behavior that caused one of our most interesting people to recluse themselves from the forums. Thanks.

Talliesin, I would decline the opportunity to live FOREVER if that means not being able to die or be killed by ANYTHING, such that I would continue even after our solar system and, perhaps, universe has ended. But I would enthusiastically accept the condition where I could live as long as I wish, and die when I wish. Aside from my writing style, how does that sound, Formicidae?