Can Humanity Handle Immortality?

[OzzyKP]

That is exactly my point. Glad to see you are finally catching on.

One carries with them the prevailing social attitude that they are born into and accustomed to throughout life. If we had 200 year old people with us today they'd still be supporting slavery because it was the norm that they are familiar with.

[Sandman]

What, exactly, is the problem with 'stagnation' in an ageless society? Why is a slowed rate of progress bad?

In any case, one cannot say how a 300 year old would think or act, especially if they have the body of a 21 year old.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
This adaptability thing isn't some physical defect that can be cured along with old age. If you have been doing something the same way every day for 50 years and suddenly something new comes along that is radically different, how easy is it to just throw out 50 years of experience and familiarity and do something entirely new?

What I'm assuming would be part of the longevity package, would be drugs / technologies / learning techniques to revitalise the brain in the dealing-with-novelty department. The idea would precisely be that we could teach old dogs new tricks.

That's what I call an optimistic outlook.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Plenty. And most all my grandparents and great aunts & uncles were fairly racist. Not KKK type racist, but subtly racist far more than their kids or grandkids.

This adaptability thing isn't some physical defect that can be cured along with old age. If you have been doing something the same way every day for 50 years and suddenly something new comes along that is radically different, how easy is it to just throw out 50 years of experience and familiarity and do something entirely new?

In a world in which hardly anything remains constant for more than 10 years at a time, I really doubt that 50 years of habitation is going to continue to be much of a problem for anybody regardless of our lifespans.

Everybody will more or less be accustomed to dealing with constant change, young and old alike.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
If we had 200 year old people with us today they'd still be supporting slavery because it was the norm that they are familiar with.

Actually, we don't know how an "immortal" person might act, since we've never seen one. We can't even necessarily extrapolate from those currently alive, because their brains are going through a normal aging process, one that theoretically would be reversed and halted at a particular "age."

So, if we were all stuck at 20, would we be allowed to drink?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Sandman
What, exactly, is the problem with 'stagnation' in an ageless society? Why is a slowed rate of progress bad?

Is life better today than it was 100 years ago? Is life better today than it was 500 years ago? 1000?

Today's society has many, many faults, but I'd much rather live today with cars & computers than live in a time of horses and slavery.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


What I'm assuming would be part of the longevity package, would be drugs / technologies / learning techniques to revitalise the brain in the dealing-with-novelty department. The idea would precisely be that we could teach old dogs new tricks.

That's what I call an optimistic outlook.

Again, I don't think it is a physical brain chemistry problem. I think the only "solution" would be a memory wipe. Which of course would undo all the benefits of accumulated wisdom & experience.

I notice hesitation in myself to adapt to new technology and social norms as a spry fairly tech savvy 25 year old. In most cases I can overcome it, but that hesitation grows and grows as one gets older. And not because of senility or any physical problems with old age.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
That is exactly my point. Glad to see you are finally catching on.

One carries with them the prevailing social attitude that they are born into and accustomed to throughout life. If we had 200 year old people with us today they'd still be supporting slavery because it was the norm that they are familiar with.

But you are assuming that the development and adaptability to social ideas would be as slow as in the past. The people born today that might live for 200 years will be developing in a completely different information infrastructure. There was no opportunity for our grandparents to discuss ideas with people all over the world as we are doing right now, so extrapolating their habits into the future cannot be a realistic prediction.

This external info-sphere is even before we consider technologies that would keep our brains younger and more supple. Longevity should be about extension of youth, not extension of old age.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Again, I don't think it is a physical brain chemistry problem. I think the only "solution" would be a memory wipe. Which of course would undo all the benefits of accumulated wisdom & experience.

I think you are generalizing your own increasing discomfort with change to the larger population and explaining it as an inevitable result of increased experience.

However, I had more trouble adjusting to change in my youth than I do now suggesting the generalization should not apply to everybody.

Major transitions in my life tended to become less and less traumatic for me each time from the transition from pre-school to kindergarten all the way down to the transition from undergrad to grad student.

Change has gotten easier for me to adjust to.

I'm sure I'm not alone.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Is life better today than it was 100 years ago? Is life better today than it was 500 years ago? 1000?

Today's society has many, many faults, but I'd much rather live today with cars & computers than live in a time of horses and slavery.

Great. Billions must die because they're standing in the way of progress.

If it were possible to double life expectancy, would you be opposed to that as well? By your logic, that would encourage stagnation as well.

The doubling of life expectancy happened in the twentieth century, and if anything, it accelerated progress.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Sandman


Great. Billions must die because they're standing in the way of progress.

If it were possible to double life expectancy, would you be opposed to that as well? By your logic, that would encourage stagnation as well.

The doubling of life expectancy happened in the twentieth century, and if anything, it accelerated progress.

I would rather we leave the world a better place for the billions of our children that will follow us instead of destroying our society and possibly planet just because we are afraid of death.

[Cort Haus]

Sandman makes an important point there, Ozzy. The 20th century saw a massive leap in life expectancy. Was that wrong?

[Geronimo]

Perhaps progress (in particular social progress) would proceed faster if medical treatment for those over 30 were abolished.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Sandman makes an important point there, Ozzy. The 20th century saw a massive leap in life expectancy. Was that wrong?

Average life expectancy is different than maximum life expectancy. People weren't really living longer, people just stopped dying in infancy 5 from various diseases we've cured now.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wycoff


That goes against my personal experience. Most older people I know lament the new P.C. culture.

Accurate but as someone that sometimes that laments the new PC culture, my problem has always been with the silliness of language that sometimes results. The jokes about short people being "vertically-challenged" are not that much of an exaggeration.

Plus when my 3 year old is on the playground and gives or receives a poke in the face involving a kiod of similar age, I want to see him resolve it himself ( even if a fight ensues) without resort to police, lawyers, anger management counselling or whatever.

I'm 38 so decidedly middle -aged but I have no problem with racial equality or gay marriage. But I roll my eyes when I see the word "womyn" and I get aggravated at some of the touchy feely "lets all be winners" crap that seems popular these days. So ya . . I think some of the PC stuff is CRAP.

But if I were immortal, I would go with the flow. In 100 years, who knows, perhaps polyamorous sexuality will be accepted widely . Sounds like a fun life to me !!