How would immortality change you?

[Mazon Del]

In some book I read a while ago, humans come across this world that is basically a giant computer. Turns out, this one civilization built a world sized computer capable of drawing power from any radiated energy that hits its surface (it's not super efficient at it, but they don't care) and uploaded their entire civilization into it. The idea was that this way they could 'live forever'. No matter how much processing power they used up, or how little energy the computer was getting, they would never experience anything other than 1/1 time. In the current universe they'd get so many ticks per second of real world. Deep into the heat death they'd be getting 1 tick every couple thousand years. But inside, they wouldn't notice the difference.

On one hand I like the idea of such a weird infinite (you are kind of in a holodeck) experience. But on the other hand, I'd probably more be interested in having some sort of robot body to go around the universe and do things with.

[Wesreidau]

I read the Silmarillion. I don't want immortality.

[theend3r]

I would start caring more about becoming a better man than leaving a legacy behind. I'm more or less aware how my abilities will deteriorate with age so I'm currently rushing things a bit. If I were immortal I wouldn't do that. Basically an optimalization of consumption, the longer you live the more you should invest in the beginning and postpone your consumption.

[-Velocity-]

Personally to add a different input than I gave before, I find the thought of immortality kinda scary. There are things I really don't want to be around to witness. I think I just might want to leave the game while I was still ahead, so to speak. Physical laws are time-reversable (except for entropy, which is more of a bulk, statistical phenomenon), so we were all dead from about 13.8 billion years until just some number of decades ago. Was it really that bad? Personally, I find the thought of living forever, or even just for a very long time, quite likely more frightening than the prospect of death. You'd know that you'd be very likely to experience all sorts of unspeakable horrors, and could be reasonably certain that you would die in an accident, or by murder, or suddenly when you were completely unprepared, or during the collapse of civilization as you starve to death or die slowly from radiation sickness, etc. Either way, your death isn't going to be pretty. At least with the way it is right now, we all have a good chance of dying in a bed surrounded by loved ones, or at least, leaving the game under our own terms.

Perhaps, the fact that we're replacing and rewiring our minds would keep "life" fresh and happy enough to make it worth living, even if your consciousness spanned trillions of years... but only if you could truly forget and heal.

[Ethanadams]

Immorality? Time to live out a life sentence just for to mess with people also time to learn as much as I can

[Mazon Del]

Just imagine though, yes there is the capacity for there to be unspeakable horrors throughout the universe that you would get to experience, but there is also the capacity for unspeakable wonders and joys to be had as well.

We don't go through life avoiding the outside world just because it can be filled with pain and misery, why should we avoid eternity?

As far as the end of the universe is concerned, we cannot know what our science will be like in billions of year (assuming we continue forth of course). Perhaps we will be able to pass into other universes? Make new ones? Maybe find a way to chill out until another big bang occurs. Etc.

[Randazzo]

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?

I find this scenario just highlights my rather bleak outlook on the world. I don't think I'd want to be immortal, particularly if those few people whose loss I would deeply regret remained mortal. Further, I can't imagine any real benefit to it. Can you even imagine having to continue in a career for hundreds of years or more? Observing the increasingly brutal and creative ways we human beings concieve of to destroy one another? Watching the planet die as we continue to abuse it?

Extended life, to a degree, sure.

Immortality, no thank you.

[WestAir]

This thread makes me realize just how people care for society, and just how little faith people have in everyone else.

There are places on this planet I wouldn't mind spending an eternity in. There are people so amazing I wouldn't mind spending an eternity with. While there is bad in human society, can you honestly say the absence of humanity is better than having it?

[Randazzo]

This thread makes me realize just how people care for society, and just how little faith people have in everyone else.

There are places on this planet I wouldn't mind spending an eternity in. There are people so amazing I wouldn't mind spending an eternity with. While there is bad in human society, can you honestly say the absence of humanity is better than having it?

Absence of Humanity is often the problem, though we are not using that word in the same fashion.

[-Velocity-]

There are places on this planet I wouldn't mind spending an eternity in. There are people so amazing I wouldn't mind spending an eternity with. While there is bad in human society, can you honestly say the absence of humanity is better than having it?

If humans don't change their behaviors in terms of self-destructive and environmentally destructive tendencies, then yes, the complete absence of humanity cannot come soon enough (because we will kill ourselves out anyway, so it's better to die quickly before we do any more irreversable damage to the planet). I mean, if you had a time machine to jump into the future 10,000 years, and found all the humans dead and the planet a desiccated, devastated place- wouldn't you want to make us extinct before that could happen?

But, there is still a lot of reason to hope that things will turn out for the better. We still have the power to do a lot of good if we can just get our uncontrolled breeding, arrogance, and self-absorption under control. That's what we have to hope and strive for. We could, for example, still spread life throughout the solar system (in the process, becoming the agents for the greatest advancement of Earth life since at least multicellular organisms) and we might be able to prevent the anthropocentric extinction event from claiming very many genera of life.

Unfortunately, a lot of people have a fixation on one of the popular (take your pick) invisible magic sky daddies. The idea is that the sky daddy is the most important thing- the only thing that really matters- and will prevent us from getting out of control (or even, in a short time, destroy the world anyway -what a nice guy!). Thus, we should not care about practical things we can see and touch and feel, like beauty, the physical world, nature, society, human welfare, animals, etc. I've been thinking that immortality is a bad thing (mostly), but perhaps it would reduce the fear of death, which is what drives many people to believe in sky daddies and put them above the real world (because the real world contains death- ew!).

Also the idea that "you might be alive in 50,000 years so you'd better take good care of the planet" would resonate better than "you'd better take better care of the planet for the sake of your children". To quote so many humans (who I am ashamed to be conspecific with)- "I won't be alive then, so why do I care?" Immortality would certainly change the attitudes of that kind of low-life scum.

Edited May 7, 2015 by |Velocity|

[WinkAllKerb'']

Just by adding a I'M to mortality ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ & 死

[magnemoe]

If humans don't change their behaviors in terms of self-destructive and environmentally destructive tendencies, then yes, the complete absence of humanity cannot come soon enough (because we will kill ourselves out anyway, so it's better to die quickly before we do any more irreversable damage to the planet). I mean, if you had a time machine to jump into the future 10,000 years, and found all the humans dead and the planet a desiccated, devastated place- wouldn't you want to make us extinct before that could happen?

But, there is still a lot of reason to hope that things will turn out for the better. We still have the power to do a lot of good if we can just get our uncontrolled breeding, arrogance, and self-absorption under control. That's what we have to hope and strive for. We could, for example, still spread life throughout the solar system (in the process, becoming the agents for the greatest advancement of Earth life since at least multicellular organisms) and we might be able to prevent the anthropocentric extinction event from claiming very many genera of life.

Unfortunately, a lot of people have a fixation on one of the popular (take your pick) invisible magic sky daddies. The idea is that the sky daddy is the most important thing- the only thing that really matters- and will prevent us from getting out of control (or even, in a short time, destroy the world anyway -what a nice guy!). Thus, we should not care about practical things we can see and touch and feel, like beauty, the physical world, nature, society, human welfare, animals, etc. I've been thinking that immortality is a bad thing (mostly), but perhaps it would reduce the fear of death, which is what drives many people to believe in sky daddies and put them above the real world (because the real world contains death- ew!).

Also the idea that "you might be alive in 50,000 years so you'd better take good care of the planet" would resonate better than "you'd better take better care of the planet for the sake of your children". To quote so many humans (who I am ashamed to be conspecific with)- "I won't be alive then, so why do I care?" Immortality would certainly change the attitudes of that kind of low-life scum.

This, if you expect to live 1000 year you plan for 1000 years.

Added note lots of the people on this tread read or watch far too much news media, stop doing that its bad for your health.

News media live of the ads, who more often you watch or refresh the more they earn. The tool is sensations and shock, most of this is bad obviously, most of the bad stuff you get life streamed today like earthquake in Nepal or civil war in Nigeria would hardly make an notice 50 years ago.

Yes this has bonuses, Nepal get plenty of help, funny note was that all the heavy military cargo planes landing breaks the runway. I fail to see the problem they are designed to land on rough runways anyway, rebuild it afterwards.

I grew up during the cold war and saw it fall, at that point most thought it was end of history, just technical problems left, yes we was naive but the problems we face today is so puny compared to 1985 that I call them issues. Some technical problems like fusion is way closer today, an reactionlees drive would be an nice end of level bonus.

[Mazon Del]

If humans don't change their behaviors in terms of self-destructive and environmentally destructive tendencies, then yes, the complete absence of humanity cannot come soon enough (because we will kill ourselves out anyway, so it's better to die quickly before we do any more irreversable damage to the planet). I mean, if you had a time machine to jump into the future 10,000 years, and found all the humans dead and the planet a desiccated, devastated place- wouldn't you want to make us extinct before that could happen?

To be quite honest, I flat out don't care about the Earth when measured against getting humans to be a space faring society. While it would be 'nice' if the Earth was still the blue gem a thousand years from now, if I had to choose between one future where Earth has a completely lifeless glassed surface, but humans have a thriving space society, or a future where Earth is much more healthy, but humans are either dead or trapped on its surface, I'd glass it every time. Horrible I know. But still how I feel. Earth is and always will be a dead end to humanity, not even because its our fault, unless we leave it.

[-Velocity-]

To be quite honest, I flat out don't care about the Earth when measured against getting humans to be a space faring society. While it would be 'nice' if the Earth was still the blue gem a thousand years from now, if I had to choose between one future where Earth has a completely lifeless glassed surface, but humans have a thriving space society, or a future where Earth is much more healthy, but humans are either dead or trapped on its surface, I'd glass it every time. Horrible I know. But still how I feel. Earth is and always will be a dead end to humanity, not even because its our fault, unless we leave it.

That's why I made my choice between a dead Earth and a dead humanity, or a living Earth and no humanity. All I was saying was that, if we were certainly on the path to wipe ourselves out, the sooner we do it, the better, because more of Earth's lifeforms would be likely to survive the sooner we die out. But it's a silly hypothetical question, because it's impossible for us to say whether we are on the path to wipe ourselves out or not.

Oh and as long as vast nuclear stockpiles exist, then there is no guarantee that you won't nuked tomorrow morning, or next Sunday at 3:16 AM or something like that. So, we're in less danger now than during the Cold War. That's like saying you're in less danger from dying a car wreck since they invented the seat belt. It will eventually happen, given enough time, as long as the huge stockpiles exist.

And no, we don't have to get rid of all nuclear weapons, it's probably not possible to put the genie entirely back in the bottle, certainly not in today's world. But there's steps we can take to greatly reduce the chance that full scale thermonuclear warfare ever breaks out.

[Pixel of Life]

I'd totally go for it as long as it meant my body would stop aging, and as long as all my relatives and friends etc got the same treatment. Watching all your loved ones grow old and die around you would be horrible.

[Beowolf]

When I was in my 20s and 30s, I loved the idea of eventual immortality. Now that I'm 55, disabled from a bad heart and arthritis, I definitely suggest reading the fine print if a genie ever offers to make you immortal. I would not want to be immortal with my present body or with one that continued to age and decay.

As of now, I would still go for having my brain digitized. But thinking about your question I realized that will likely change one day, too. My older friends and I can all feel our brains slowing down these days. It isn't much yet, but each of us misses something we used to have at our mental peak. So I can imagine a future time when I might think I've lost so much it'd just be better to let nature do its thing.

So get off my lawn and get back to work, you darned kids! Digitizing brains will take years of nanotech breakthroughs, and I'm retired.