NationStates Jolt Archive

Immortality has been one of the age old dreams of mankind. From fictional stuff like the fountain of youth to Stephen Hawkings proposal of gene tweaked humans with +200 year lifespans and more to more practical life extension medical research that helps people live longer. Even religions operate on the ideas of infinite existence based on the afterlife or reincarnations. It may not be a spoken goal, but actions are certainly leading towards that medical holy grail.

Now imagine if immortality was a reality. Be it gene manipulated super humans or genetic restoration via nanomachine infusion. Not just reality, but knowledge of the how to made widespread. What do you think would happen? Would humanity be ready for such an upset to such a deeply ingrained aspect of life? That death isn't mandatory for life anymore?

I have a few ideas of what may happen, and few of them are as rosy as most eternal life proposals paint.

For one, what would the next generation become? For now, most people see them as a promise of the future. But with immortality, and the future forever preserved for the here and now, would future generations be seen not as a promise, but a threat to the new balance? And if so, does that mean we have reached the end of the road from an evolutionary standpoint?

Would society even be ready for such a thing? In a world where a majority of the populace believe in life after death, what would the prospect of immortality bring? An escape? Or immense terror?

Would the value of life, in a world where life is unchanging, drop? Would there be a new breed of thrill seekers, but rather than excitement, seek death?

What does NSG think?

I think you have too much time on your hands :).

Me I think thats its not possible.. eventually something will just stop working and people will die.

I don't like the idea of immortality, far too long for me.
And it could get very boring very quickly, and we'd have to work for longer.
And overpopulation of the world would be more likely.
but i suppose you'd be younger for longer could do more exiting things for longer, and have more exiting birthdays.

The death penalty debate takes on a whole new aspect is what would happen.

There'd be serious over-crowding problems for a while until people got used to not having very many children. But it'd work out eventually, as some people would get bored of life and commit suicide.

Well, amoeba are still doing fine after millions of years, so immortality isn't necessarily a dead end for a species....

I don't like the idea of immortality, far too long for me.
And it could get very boring very quickly, and we'd have to work for longer.
And overpopulation of the world would be more likely.
but i suppose you'd be younger for longer could do more exiting things for longer, and have more exiting birthdays.

But think of how many candles people would have to buy. If immortality is reached, invest in the candle industry.

Well, amoeba are still doing fine after millions of years, so immortality isn't necessarily a dead end for a species....They're not really immortal are they? They clone themselves, but in doing so they're subject to mutation as well. It's hard to speak of one individual amoeba that lived for millions of years.

They're not really immortal are they? They clone themselves, but in doing so they're subject to mutation as well. It's hard to speak of one individual amoeba that lived for millions of years.

Well, technically they don't die, do they? Unless they get eaten or killed...

You have a point. Humanity would not just become stagnant evolutionary wise, but as well as social and psychology. It takes only three to four decades, in modern times, for most people to shut off their minds to new ideas and enter a life long rut. Sure, you will have a the scarce deviants but they are in the minority.

Physical immorality would be the final defeat of the species, but the ultimate triumph for the individual. In that sense any form of tangible immortality would require one to sacrifice their humanity as we know it. Is it right? Is it wrong? Does it matter?

Death is the ultimate escape, it is a renewing force. When a fire burns an entire ecosystem to the ground, within weeks, days (or in some cases hours), new growth can be seen. In the case of an ancient forest where the foliage is so thick that no light can reach the ground nothing new can grow. Is one of those two situations more favorable then they other?

Ultimately I believe that only few will opt for immorality, must will resist it. However, over the centuries the few that choice life ever lasting will start to grow in number linearly... perhaps it is not the end of evolution but the next step. What ever the case it will be an end to the world as we know it.

Ultimately I believe that only few will opt for immorality, must will resist it. However, over the centuries the few that choice life ever lasting will start to grow in number linearly... perhaps it is not the end of evolution but the next step. What ever the case it will be an end to the world as we know it.

How many people would actually opt for a sure death as opposed to potential immortality (accidents and intentional killings will still probably occur). And more than that, can you imagine the effects on religion and society? All of a sudden, the life insurance business would collapse. Not to mention the sudden lack of appeal of a good afterlife when you don't need it.

They're not really immortal are they? They clone themselves, but in doing so they're subject to mutation as well. It's hard to speak of one individual amoeba that lived for millions of years.Maybe you are talking to a hyper evolved amoeba that has gained immortality.

*Nods.*

First and foremost, you'd have to look at species that have very long lifespans. Beyond that, I think it depends, really. Aside from the fact that immortality would not prevent people from being killed, just offset the causes of aging and biological death through most means, it would not likely ever exist in the truest sense of the term. Most people would presumably become bored of biological life and either end their lives after a certain period of time or pursue some other means of existing that would better fit an unconstrained lifespan; the only way you could really have immortality is if you were to get rid of your biological body. And it's hardly better for us to see the next generation as "the future", considering it basically forces us in to an ageist form of discrimination that sees youth as preferable to the accumulated wisdom and experience of the elderly. If we stop worshiping youth and instead shift our values to better appreciate the elderly, it will change the outlook of our society accordingly.

Lastly, we'd have to take in to account the fact that evolution is basically meaningless in this context; achieving means you've "won" at evolution because you are no longer vulnerable to environmental effects or selective pressures on your species. You've gained total control over your species' genetic code and environment and are capable of engineering it to pursue the most optimal path; there is nothing you can't adapt to, no barrier you can't overcome, and no barrier to your continued growth and expansion. Indefinite lifespan is more the effect of victory over evolution rather than an end in and of itself.

Life would become pretty worthless for a lot of people. But then you'd also have a lot of people who would keep themselves active at all times just to keep giving their life meaning.

the only way you could really have immortality is if you were to get rid of your biological body.


Not necessarily. Biological death in most causes excepting accidents or killings is via disease or simple genetic failure in the sense where the body stops replicating cells to make up for the rate of cell death. Gene tweaking can help extend the maximum cell lifetime rate, but nanite infusion and renewal at the atomic stage would probably do better, yet still keep your biological body.


And it's hardly better for us to see the next generation as "the future", considering it basically forces us in to an ageist form of discrimination that sees youth as preferable to the accumulated wisdom and experience of the elderly. If we stop worshiping youth and instead shift our values to better appreciate the elderly, it will change the outlook of our society accordingly.


Maybe so, but with the promise of immortality, and the idea that the next generation becomes a threat, would it lead to something akin to China's one child policy, except on a much harsher scale? Including the active mass culling of newborns?


Lastly, we'd have to take in to account the fact that evolution is basically meaningless in this context; achieving means you've "won" at evolution because you are no longer vulnerable to environmental effects or selective pressures on your species. You've gained total control over your species' genetic code and environment and are capable of engineering it to pursue the most optimal path; there is nothing you can't adapt to, no barrier you can't overcome, and no barrier to your continued growth and expansion. Indefinite lifespan is more the effect of victory over evolution rather than an end in and of itself.

But immortality in this context is genetic stagnation. Short of a catastrophic environmental change, why would you want to change yourself?

Not to mention the idea that a society without an influx of new blood eventually stagnates as a whole. People become stuck in a rut, and after a time period, would it be capable of moving forward socially and politically if it always has a fixed state?

I wouldn't want to be immortal, there's not really any point to living forever.

Immortality. Why get prevent all or any natural death? Death and fear are two of the many things that make life exciting. Part of the thrill of doing something stupid is knowing you could die from it. The thrill comes from "cheating" death. Take death out of it and the thrill is gone. Life loses some of its thrills.

It also leads to stagnation. Evolution's only goal is to develop better and better species. When you achieve mass immortality, reproduction has to go. When that happens, there's no evolution. The species won't improve over time. It stagnates. There's no improvement.

Not necessarily. Biological death in most causes excepting accidents or killings is via disease or simple genetic failure in the sense where the body stops replicating cells to make up for the rate of cell death. Gene tweaking can help extend the maximum cell lifetime rate, but nanite infusion and renewal at the atomic stage would probably do better, yet still keep your biological body.

Well, accidents and killing would still cause a lot of deaths (especially with the kind of weapons this technological level would produce). Eliminating biological aging would take care of a lot of causes of death, but some of them will still remain. That's why a death rate of zero is virtually impossible. Unless, theoretically, you were to replace your biological body with a mechanical one or upload in to a computer. However, since that would also eliminate the need for the various resources consumed by a biological body (you'd just need a steady supply of energy, but no food/water/resources beyond the initial conversion cost), solving the issue.

Perhaps beyond a certain age, people would have to either allow themselves to begin aging or begin replacing their bodies with mechanical parts/upload their minds as a way of dealing with resource demand. This way, you'd have a biological "death rate", freeing up resources for the biological population, but the people themselves would not have to die. Of course, these technologies are basically clarketech right now , making it difficult to really weigh their impact on society.

Either way, it will happen, and some society is going to have to deal with its consequences.

Maybe so, but with the promise of immortality, and the idea that the next generation becomes a threat, would it lead to something akin to China's one child policy, except on a much harsher scale? Including the active mass culling of newborns?

Well, people naturally have fewer children as they age, and the probability of genetic disorders increases considerably over time; whether or not regenerative medicine would cure this is something I can't comment on, but it's highly unlikely people would have a lot of children or stimulate excessive population growth. Plus, if we look at countries today, many have a very low birthrate without resorting to population control; there are a lot of ways to ensure growth remains at a manageable level without resorting to totalitarian methods of keeping the population low.

Given that it would take a while for the effects of indefinite lifespan to really be felt, that would be a lot of time in which to deal with its potential consequences. I am highly skeptical that any society capable of eliminating most forms of death would not be capable of finding a humane and effective solution of dealing with population growth, or at the very least would be able to expand itself far beyond the limits posed by the planet Earth.

But immortality in this context is genetic stagnation. Short of a catastrophic environmental change, why would you want to change yourself?

Well, you might want to give yourself new abilities, or enhance those you already have. Genetic changes would be entirely voluntary; there's no need for evolution if you control the entire process yourself. Evolution is just nature's way of achieving many of the same things we achieve through culture and technology. It's slower, and certainly more painful, but works towards a similar end.

Not to mention the idea that a society without an influx of new blood eventually stagnates as a whole. People become stuck in a rut, and after a time period, would it be capable of moving forward socially and politically if it always has a fixed state?

We assume it would have a fixed state; people are still going to want to explore and expand even if they have no real chance of death from age-related degeneration. In fact, it's more likely people would explore new things as part of keeping their lives interesting as they get older and older; plus, given that it would be impossible to realistically control population growth, there would always be a new generation of people available.

I think it would ultimately be a choice. If you want to, you do it, and if not, you don't. I would not be surprised if many people don't decide to live for a very long time, for any number of reasons; I wouldn't mind a lot of time myself, but others may not be so inclined.

When pondering the question of immortality, I think this film would be of benefit.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070948/

I'd imagine people would eventually get bored at some point and kill themselves.

how would retirement work???

I think it would be feasible with a few conditions. It would have to be a post-scarcity society where anything boring and repetitive was automated so that people's don't have their minds stagnate. Evolution could be replaced with artificial modification of the body (genes of a living creature can be altered).

People are sufficiently incompetent in nearly all things that I am quite certain that no one, regardless of how genetically modified, or jacked up on nanomachines they may be, would manage to die, somehow. Be it a run in with a truck, a misadventure learning how to hang glide, or whatnot, people would die, and new generations would be needed.

Surely you mean everyone, not no-one. Anyway, yes, it's true that as time tends to infinity the probability of accidental death tends to one.

People are sufficiently incompetent in nearly all things that I am quite certain that no one, regardless of how genetically modified, or jacked up on nanomachines they may be, would manage to die, somehow. Be it a run in with a truck, a misadventure learning how to hang glide, or whatnot, people would die, and new generations would be needed.

Well, amoeba are still doing fine after millions of years, so immortality isn't necessarily a dead end for a species....

I don't think an evolutionary deadend means that it will die out. The flatworm as reached an evolutionary deadend, its so well evolved for its environment that any mutation would not be benificial enough to become widespread in the population and if you removed the flatworm from its environment, its so well-adapted for it that it can't survive anywhere else and so won't have a chance to evolve to the new environment.

People are sufficiently incompetent in nearly all things that I am quite certain that no one, regardless of how genetically modified, or jacked up on nanomachines they may be, would manage to die, somehow. Be it a run in with a truck, a misadventure learning how to hang glide, or whatnot, people would die, and new generations would be needed.

I'm not saying being completely unkillable. I'm saying an indefinite natural lifespan. Death by old age and disease are removed from the equation when determining mortality.

The death penalty debate takes on a whole new aspect is what would happen.

The cost analysis would be different at the very least

Evolution's only goal is to develop better and better species. When you achieve mass immortality, reproduction has to go. When that happens, there's no evolution. The species won't improve over time. It stagnates. There's no improvement.

Actually, evolution doesn't really have a goal, it's just a selection mechanism for fitness to an arbitrary environment.

The species might not improve over time, but that doesn't mean you or I can't improve over time. (mortal *or* immortal)

Judging from history, I'm not really sold on the idea that the species is improving.

Well, accidents and killing would still cause a lot of deaths (especially with the kind of weapons this technological level would produce). Eliminating biological aging would take care of a lot of causes of death, but some of them will still remain. That's why a death rate of zero is virtually impossible. Unless, theoretically, you were to replace your biological body with a mechanical one or upload in to a computer. However, since that would also eliminate the need for the various resources consumed by a biological body (you'd just need a steady supply of energy, but no food/water/resources beyond the initial conversion cost), solving the issue.

Perhaps beyond a certain age, people would have to either allow themselves to begin aging or begin replacing their bodies with mechanical parts/upload their minds as a way of dealing with resource demand. This way, you'd have a biological "death rate", freeing up resources for the biological population, but the people themselves would not have to die. Of course, these technologies are basically clarketech right now , making it difficult to really weigh their impact on society.


Perhaps so, but all I'm saying with this scenario is that death by old age and disease are removed from mortality determining factors. If you ran someone over with a truck, they'd still be probably dead.

But even with that kind of limitation, would society really be capable of coping with that sort of thing? Or would it lead to some kind of dead end where basic drive motives hardwired into the genome just give out over time?


Well, people naturally have fewer children as they age, and the probability of genetic disorders increases considerably over time; whether or not regenerative medicine would cure this is something I can't comment on, but it's highly unlikely people would have a lot of children or stimulate excessive population growth. Plus, if we look at countries today, many have a very low birthrate without resorting to population control; there are a lot of ways to ensure growth remains at a manageable level without resorting to totalitarian methods of keeping the population low.

Given that it would take a while for the effects of indefinite lifespan to really be felt, that would be a lot of time in which to deal with its potential consequences. I am highly skeptical that any society capable of eliminating most forms of death would not be capable of finding a humane and effective solution of dealing with population growth, or at the very least would be able to expand itself far beyond the limits posed by the planet Earth.

Sterilization and other forms of advanced birth control maybe, but if today's examples are any indicator, you'll still have a net growth that may or may not be beneficial overall. Especially in regards to the poorer areas.

For that matter, given the availability and cost of immortalization, there's a very real threat of a caste system rising.



Well, you might want to give yourself new abilities, or enhance those you already have. Genetic changes would be entirely voluntary; there's no need for evolution if you control the entire process yourself. Evolution is just nature's way of achieving many of the same things we achieve through culture and technology. It's slower, and certainly more painful, but works towards a similar end.

It's a big difference between restoring existing gene codes and tweaking it to give yourself new abilities I think.


We assume it would have a fixed state; people are still going to want to explore and expand even if they have no real chance of death from age-related degeneration. In fact, it's more likely people would explore new things as part of keeping their lives interesting as they get older and older; plus, given that it would be impossible to realistically control population growth, there would always be a new generation of people available.

I think it would ultimately be a choice. If you want to, you do it, and if not, you don't. I would not be surprised if many people don't decide to live for a very long time, for any number of reasons; I wouldn't mind a lot of time myself, but others may not be so inclined.

Short of nihilists though, I can't really see most people not opting for indefinite life extensions. Perhaps a rise in demand for suicide booths in the future though?

We'd just turn into the more ridiculous (and bafflingly enough less of the more noble) aspects of the Pantheon if immortality were a capability. We're too fucking stupid to figure out purpose, and the last thing that kind of species should have is unlimited time to do everything but serve a purpose.