Immortality

[PatrickTheScienceGuy]

i was having a conversation with my father recently over immortality. (just so on one gets picky: immortality: living forever, not aging) we where saying how the planet would become overrun in a few decades, so he proposed a solution. Anyone can become immortal, but if they choose so they cannot have children.

also there is the problem of what time in your life would you choose to become immortal?

so what are your thoughts on this League?

 

[MRaverz]

Anyone can become immortal?

I wouldn't really want serial killers who could never die..

 

[PatrickTheScienceGuy]

well obviously not dangerous criminals and the like. but the general public. and also id like to add what about reinstating the death penalty for immortals who commit serious crimes? and what punishment would you think re-places prison for immortals? (as time in jail would be meaningless to someone who has eternity.)

 

[obsidianavenger]

i was having a conversation with my father recently over immortality. (just so on one gets picky: immortality: living forever, not aging) we where saying how the planet would become overrun in a few decades, so he proposed a solution. Anyone can become immortal, but if they choose so they cannot have children.

also there is the problem of what time in your life would you choose to become immortal?

so what are your thoughts on this League?

lol can't you just have children and then apply to be immortal?

also how would you manage to control the technology so strictly?

and if you're immortal do you still need to eat and whatnot?

its interesting to think about but theres so many variables...

 

[PatrickTheScienceGuy]

no it would have to be checked first if people already have children then they would not be allowed to become immortal. and this tech would have to be regulated but yes but this is a hypothetical situation. the original question was what do you thing of the moral part of not allowing people to have children in return for immortality.

it would be spectacular for scientific advancement, just think we could have all of the grate scientific minds working together.

 

[MRaverz]

well obviously not dangerous criminals and the like. but the general public. and also id like to add what about reinstating the death penalty for immortals who commit serious crimes? and what punishment would you think re-places prison for immortals? (as time in jail would be meaningless to someone who has eternity.)

If you could kill them they wouldn't be immortal, so we're talking about extended lifetimes exclusively. Then it could be a status given and taken away at will.

Personally, I wouldn't take up the offer. I'm happy admitting that sometimes life's mysteries get too much and I wouldn't like an eternity of asking myself unanswerable questions, additionally if I couldn't have children I would feel as if my life was wasted - I quite like the idea of being another link in a long chain of humans and in fact life in general. We are all connected, to each other biologically etc.

Now I think about it, submitting to basic reproduction is more than enough for a meaning for my life, that's one question down.


This scheme would only be immoral if it were forced upon someone, I would hope however that the great scientific minds would be the people who took up the offer.

 

[PatrickTheScienceGuy]

when i say immortality i mean not aging and not dying from disease or injury but if someone who was immortal was say to be atomized they would undoubtedly die. (a distinct problem with things like superman where he can fly into the corona of the sun and not be destroyed at an atomic level. one of my pet niggles about super heroes, not to mention the flying without any means of lift, propulsion, ect.)

i have come up with another proposal to add about the immortality and reproduction if someone is presented with a Nobel prize of some sort they are given the option to be able to reproduce and be immortal along with their spouse.

 

[MRaverz]

when i say immortality i mean not aging and not dying from disease or injury but if someone who was immortal was say to be atomized they would undoubtedly die. (a distinct problem with things like superman where he can fly into the corona of the sun and not be destroyed at an atomic level. one of my pet niggles about super heroes, not to mention the flying without any means of lift, propulsion, ect.)

i have come up with another proposal to add about the immortality and reproduction if someone is presented with a Nobel prize of some sort they are given the option to be able to reproduce and be immortal along with their spouse.

One problem there, there is no Nobel Price for biology! Not fair seeing as this is the field I intend to enter. :lol:

 

[obsidianavenger]

no it would have to be checked first if people already have children then they would not be allowed to become immortal. and this tech would have to be regulated but yes but this is a hypothetical situation. the original question was what do you thing of the moral part of not allowing people to have children in return for immortality.

it would be spectacular for scientific advancement, just think we could have all of the grate scientific minds working together.

oh. fertility vs immortality. ignoring all practical issues, i think that would be a fair trade off. mating is just an inefficient bid at immortality anyways

now you're starting to sound like a eugenicist though, with your "make all the nobel prize winners immortal and also allow them to have children"

furthermore, if you'll immortal from everything except being atomized, then you wouldn't need to eat or breathe and resources wouldn't be an issue. so i am not sure you could then justify preventing reproduction. do the kids of such unions need resources to survive?

 

[obsidianavenger]

also kind of random but seems relevant:

http://www.monster-watch.com/post.php?post_id=21

 

[PatrickTheScienceGuy]

interesting mabye this would prove as an example of how people would become immortal for this scenario.

 

[MRaverz]

also kind of random but seems relevant:

http://www.monster-watch.com/post.php?post_id=21

I think that lobster issue will be solved easily, lobsters are killed before they reach their prime. It openly admits that there has never been any real study into their life span and that they can only determine it roughly from their weight. Sounds like the media jumping to conclusions to me.

 

[Raistlin Majere]

Just a thought. Maybe allow immortality to be both given and removed in this hypothetical situation? Immortality for any length of time that the person chooses, and then if they decide they want it off, it's removed and they're free to have their children, etc.?

 

[Demojen]

Immortality is not invincibility.
Let's not confuse the two.

Immortals can die. Just not by way of cellular decay.
However and I feel this is significant.

Immortal individuals would slow the natural evolution of our species, depending on their individual contributions.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Immortal individuals would slow the natural evolution of our species, depending on their individual contributions.

First of all, if we were able to come up with a solution to aging we could certainly use genetic engineering to force evolution at a far more rapid pace than random mutations ever could.

Secondly, We are evolving far more rapidly in terms of our knowledge than our gene pool, to such an extent that genes scarcely matter at this point. The value of an immortal individual who has lived for hundreds of years would probably be incredibly great just for the variation in perspective that such an individual would offer - such a person would undoubtedly have a unique perspective on events and that = more knowledge = good in itself.

In any case, I'm not sure the immortality means having no children solution is necessarily a great solution, but it is a possible solution.. I would reckon that by the time we have such technology we would be able to build massive colony ships and have the technology to spread throughout the solar system and galaxy, therefore no need for such trade offs.

By this same logic though, we should be forcing people that simply live longer to have less children as it is... not sure many would agree to that.

 

[Niocan]

Why is there an assumption that we're stuck on Earth for the entire time? Immortality would mean we can spend less time killing each other and more time fixing things like usury, capitalism, social indoctrination, and eventually space exploration and colonization.

 

[Jotto999]

Immortal individuals would slow the natural evolution of our species, depending on their individual contributions.

First of all, if we were able to come up with a solution to aging we could certainly use genetic engineering to force evolution at a far more rapid pace than random mutations ever could.

Secondly, We are evolving far more rapidly in terms of our knowledge than our gene pool, to such an extent that genes scarcely matter at this point. The value of an immortal individual who has lived for hundreds of years would probably be incredibly great just for the variation in perspective that such an individual would offer - such a person would undoubtedly have a unique perspective on events and that = more knowledge = good in itself.

In any case, I'm not sure the immortality means having no children solution is necessarily a great solution, but it is a possible solution.. I would reckon that by the time we have such technology we would be able to build massive colony ships and have the technology to spread throughout the solar system and galaxy, therefore no need for such trade offs.

By this same logic though, we should be forcing people that simply live longer to have less children as it is... not sure many would agree to that.

I agree with this post.

Imagine the level of mastery typically achieved in a normal human's lifetime in whichever skills they have, or will learn throughout their life. Now imagine the level of mastery that could exist in someone that has had twice, three times, five times the healthy lifespan. The value of these beings who have been alive and active for hundreds of years...imagine how much knowledge and wisdom they could have amassed, in many fields. Our current potential for mental growth and development is severely limited by the fact that we grow old and die.

It reminds me of fictitious characters like Gandalf from LotR, minus the magic. Just...a walking fountain of knowledge with so much wisdom and experience.

I think the amount that these people would contribute to overpopulation is nothing compared to what they could contribute elsewhere.

 

[nasher168]

Why is there an assumption that we're stuck on Earth for the entire time? Immortality would mean we can spend less time killing each other and more time fixing things like usury, capitalism, social indoctrination, and eventually space exploration and colonization.

Can I really be about to say this? Here goes...
Well said, Niocan.

I once read a book called "One Million Tomorrows". It's set in a future where immortality has become possible, but the price is fertility and sexual attraction in males. As a result, no men above the age of about 40 are able to have kids, nor do they feel the urge to have them. The book explores the impact of this on society, especially when a company claims to have found a way to have both immortality and retain sexuality.
I would recommend reading it.

 

[Case]

if someone is presented with a Nobel prize of some sort they are given the option to be able to reproduce and be immortal along with their spouse.

There's one more problem with that other than the 'access restriction'. An award says preciously little about genetic prowess or (reproductive) value for society, it tends to tell more about the jury. Not pointing any fingers, but if last year's Nobel prizes are any indication,... I think you catch my drift. Essentially, it's a question of reliability and validity of the tests that are supposed to assess 'worthiness', which I find quite unsatisfactory so I don't consider this a workable solution.

 

[Weirdtopia]

Immortality is a disease