How would immortality change you?

[WestAir]

May 1st, 2020 - Researchers studying cancer find a way to stop damage to telomeres in cell division, eliminating the hayflick limit, all without creating cancer cells. Five years later they test a procedure that completely stops senescence in human subjects. Suddenly your generation is the first to have access to medical immortality.

What would you do? How would this change your plans, your goals, your lifestyle? Would you even go for it?

We had this discussion at work the other day and I was curious to know what the Science Lab thought. Most of my coworkers used the (in my opinion lame) excuse "I wouldn't want to live that long." (often without elaborating what length of time long represents...) - I respect the answer but I rarely meet anyone who is on their deathbed and says "I'm ready!". Personally, I'd save up, pay for the procedure then spent the next millennia not dying. You?

[Frozen_Heart]

At the moment it would change nothing for me, except maybe allow me a bit more patience when waiting for things to happen in life.

[Greenfire32]

So if I understand this correctly, it only stop further aging and doesn't reverse it? IE: a 20-yr old stays 20 forever, a 50-yr old stays 50 forever?

Assuming this is the case, I'd probably just keep on doing what I do right now. Work, play games, eat & sleep. I like my life the way it is right now. My only complaint? I'll get old and die some day.

I'm also assuming that medical immortality is only just immunity from aging and not actual immortality. I'm assuming if I were hit by a bus, I'd be dead as dead can get.

[Bill Phil]

I'd ask for one that only extends my life to the mid 4th millenium. 3500s here I come! So many changes... And then maybe I'll see if I want to keep going, because I know the Galactic Empire will rise and fall, and becoming R. Daneel Olivaw except entirely human wouldn't be that amazing....

I would like to meat Philip J. Fry, though....

[steve58]

May 1st, 2020 Personally, I'd save up, pay for the procedure then spent the next millennia not dying. You?

...so how much would it cost to live forever? Seems like our whole society/etc would need a major thought/life change

[Dkmdlb]

Patiently await the singularity and start reading up on transhumanism.

[-Velocity-]

First, I'd say, "Oh !@#$". Second, I'd probably start building a bunker in the woods somewhere and stocking up on ammunition, food, information (like, "How Things Work" vol 1-179), and medical supplies. Next, I'd become a very strong advocate for mandatory, enforced birth control and population limits, with the hope that maybe, just maybe, we could gain enough wisdom fast enough to stay the coming disaster.

Human society is simply NOT ready for immortality. It could destroy us very easily. Also, human progress would grind to a halt as no new minds came into being to think new thoughts. Progress is driven by the young.

Now, if we could like, live to like 150 and no more, and maintain relative youthfulness for most of that- I suppose that might be good, but being stuck at like 25 forever would be bad, bad, bad.

Edited April 30, 2015 by |Velocity|

[Kryten]

What happens when my memory runs out?

[-Velocity-]

What happens when my memory runs out?

It probably wouldn't, brains probably over-write memories or lose them entirely as neurons die and are replaced.

[Bill Phil]

What happens when my memory runs out?

Grab more?

"Brains for sale! Get your brains!"

Maybe it'll be like modern computers?

Need more memory? Grab some RAM chips.

Need more hard drive? Grab an external one or a bigger one.

I have no idea, though...

[vger]

Also, human progress would grind to a halt as no new minds came into being to think new thoughts.

I disagree. If immortality came with a solution to the classic diseases of the brain that tend to start in the 70's to 90's, it would mean a paradigm shift in our ability to acquire knowledge.

If we had the tech centuries ago, Einstein could still be developing new theories now. Fields of scientific study are already pushing the limits of the human lifespan, in that it takes a HUGE swath of our life expectancy to just attain the knowledge that came before us. That leaves us at best, maybe 40 years to apply what we have learned, to push it even further. But if we had a thousand years to apply that knowledge?

[Bill Phil]

Also, human progress would grind to a halt as no new minds came into being to think new thoughts.

Not quite true.

People change over time. Minds change over time.

Not to mention the possibility of reducing things forgotten from short term memory. I often start to think it could be that many scientific advances are not accomplished earlier because someone thought of it, and then forgot about it.

[-Velocity-]

You are not going to run out of memory. Seriously, try to remember what things were like ten years ago for you- like people you interacted with, what things you were doing, what your mind set was, etc. Now compare that to your memories from one year ago. It's pretty clear that long term memory slowly degrades.

Brain matter takes A LOT of energy to supply. There is a strong trend in evolution to lose brain mass in species that don't need to think very much. When a species goes vegetarian, their brains shrink, for example. Look at koalas. They have no predators, they just hang around in trees stuffing their faces with leaves. They are so dumb they are almost reptilian. Actually, that might be disrespecting reptiles a bit, I hear that monitor lizards are pretty smart.

Anyway, the idea that we have "empty" memory space in our heads makes no sense in light of the strong selective pressure to minimize brain mass. You will never run out of memory, because you're probably already using all of your memory as-is, and the brain probably already deals with a head full of memories. It's like that stupid myth that you only use 10% of your brain. Total rubbish.

Edited April 30, 2015 by |Velocity|

[Bill Phil]

You are not going to run out of memory. Seriously, try to remember what things were like ten years ago for you- like people you interacted with, what things you were doing, what your mind set was, etc. Now compare that to your memories from one year ago. It's pretty clear that long term memory slowly degrades.

Brain matter takes A LOT of energy to supply. There is a strong trend in evolution to lose brain mass in species that don't need to think very much. When a species goes vegetarian, their brains shrink, for example. Look at koalas. They have no predators, they just hang around in trees stuffing their faces with leaves. They are so dumb they are almost reptilian. Actually, that might be disrespecting reptiles a bit, I hear that monitor lizards are pretty smart.

Anyway, the idea that we have "empty" memory space in our heads makes no sense in light of the strong selective pressure to minimize brain mass. You will never run out of memory, because you're probably already using all of your memory as-is, and the brain probably already deals with a head full of memories. It's like that stupid myth that you only use 10% of your brain. Total rubbish.

Who is this aimed towards? If me, I was referring to the immediate short term memory. You think of something and if you don't think of it enough it gets deleted.

[WinkAllKerb'']

this is just boring ... nope for sure ... once your immortal the only thing you'll start to dream off is to being mortal 100% guaranted

[Greenfire32]

What happens when my memory runs out?

It wouldn't.

Your brain is constantly dumping "irrelevant" data and writing new information in it's place. Example: You might remember what kind of cake you had for your 7th birthday, but you probably don't remember what you had for lunch 9 days ago. Your brain looks at that information and files it under "definitely not important-delete" so that when –important life even happens, you can remember it.

[-Velocity-]

I disagree. If immortality came with a solution to the classic diseases of the brain that tend to start in the 70's to 90's, it would mean a paradigm shift in our ability to acquire knowledge.

If we had the tech centuries ago, Einstein could still be developing new theories now. Fields of scientific study are already pushing the limits of the human lifespan, in that it takes a HUGE swath of our life expectancy to just attain the knowledge that came before us. That leaves us at best, maybe 40 years to apply what we have learned, to push it even further. But if we had a thousand years to apply that knowledge?

Einstein is one of the worst examples you could use. After he came up with General Relativity- in his youth- he did very little. Just beat his head against the wall looking for a unified fields theory. To his dying day, he REFUSED to accept that black holes could exist in nature. He refused to believe in the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics; instead he believed in hidden variables.

There are many examples like this. Old people are just inflexible and cannot change their opinions, and this goes in science too.

I am not the first to point this out, either, many science historians have noted this. Old scientists stick to outdated and disproven ideas, while young ones embrace the change. It's not a complete steadfast rule, it is a generalization that will have many exceptions. But on average, it is more true than not true (that's how generalizations work ).

Now, if we were locked in 25 year old minds, things might be different. Maybe this effect would be less true. But, I still think it's true to a large extent. People get very set in the ways in which they view the world and the things in which they believe, and this is basic human nature that is true for anyone, regardless of age (though it is less true for younger people).

Edited April 30, 2015 by |Velocity|

[vger]

I am not the first to point this out, either, many science historians have noted this. Old scientists stick to outdated and disproven ideas, while young ones embrace the change. It's not a complete steadfast rule, it is a generalization that will have many exceptions. But on average, it is more true than not true (that's how generalizations work ).

Now, if we were locked in 25 year old minds, things might be different. Maybe this effect would be less true. But, I still think it's true to a large extent.

I guess that depends on what the definition of "old" is in this scenario. I can't fathom developing immortality without compensating for some of this. What would be the point of having the body of a 20 year old for hundreds of years, if all we did with it is get senile and stare out the window all day?

[basic.syntax]

It wouldn't.

Your brain is constantly dumping "irrelevant" data and writing new information in it's place. Example: You might remember what kind of cake you had for your 7th birthday, but you probably don't remember what you had for lunch 9 days ago. Your brain looks at that information and files it under "definitely not important-delete" so that when –important life even happens, you can remember it.

Taking that further, I heard a story on the radio about memory research, that said memories are not really, or always "original" - they get rewritten every time you remember them. Personal experience points to the occasional selective /wishful memory. I watch a movie I haven't seen in 10 years: "I remember that line.... but not said in that way. It was so much cooler in my head!"

[LN400]

If it is science fiction, it is an intriguing idea. If it ever becomes reality, then I am concerned this is an extremely short sighted idea driven by some people's hunt for the Fantastic while not seeing, be it through bias or pure lack of insight, the long term consequences. First, if warp drive or anything like that violates the laws of physics then interstellar travel will have to be a journey over hundreds, thousands or millions of years. Imortals could cope with such a quick trip but time is still time and how would they cope with it mentally? My point is, unless we somehow can get to other star systems with our wits intact, and being alive when we get there, then we're stuck in this system. It can only hold so many. How are we going to deal with a world wide population growing out of all proportions? Or would we enforce a population control where we only allow newborns if someone else die and make room? If noone die except in accidents or through diseases (they do evolve too, the diseases), where will all of us live? The prospect of eternal life is one that is not making me one bit happy.

[vger]

How are we going to deal with a world wide population growing out of all proportions? Or would we enforce a population control where we only allow newborns if someone else die and make room?

That's not a question just for this hypothetical situation. One way or another, we're going to have no choice but to enforce population control eventually. The instinct to spawn is probably the most powerful drive that we have, yet it's the only one we don't have a law to regulate.

[WestAir]

It would make true interstellar travel possible. 2,500 years to the next system would be a journey you can take with the family. Nations can spread entire systems because populations can live long enough to make trade meaningful.

[dryer_lint]

Hmm. Interesting concept. Really makes you think about how dying is inevitable and eventually I'll get old and die-

Christ, this got depressing fast.

ABANDON THREAD!

but seriously, I can't stand to think about this stuff. IMMINENT EXISTENTIAL CRISIS

[Bill Phil]

It would make true interstellar travel possible. 2,500 years to the next system would be a journey you can take with the family. Nations can spread entire systems because populations can live long enough to make trade meaningful.

Even if we get pretty fast spacecraft (>50%c) then it still takes a while to go places. Would be useful for farther distances...

[WestAir]

Even if we get pretty fast spacecraft (>50%c) then it still takes a while to go places. Would be useful for farther distances...

True but with negligible senescence we'll survive a journey of any duration. Time is no longer correlative to death.

We'd have time to worry about these problems, to carefully build new societies in new frontiers, and most importantly: To enjoy them.