Can Humanity Handle Immortality?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No. The world isn't prepared to cope with people living to be 125. Living to be 125 doesn't speak to anything of your ability to function and "contribute".

The kinds of failures you are speaking about would have to be corrected for immortality to be possible.

[Ninot]

I think I could do it. But global warming will kill us all, so no point, right?

[OzzyKP]

I'm counting 200+ years as "immortality", and I think it would cause serious problems in society. Even if one assumes with a typical 200 year max and 160 or so years of healthy, active living.

Initially of course the cost of whatever procedure or treatment would be far too expensive for 97% of the world's population. So it would pretty much be the rich who would be sticking around forever. More time to collect dividends, more time to build wealth, more time to get richer.

And there has been a clear trend that the longer someone lives and the wealthier they are the less kids they have. So the poor world will continue to live, die, and reproduce, and this small cabal of super wealthy will just stay around forever.

Also, to add a youth rights critique, all progress depends on youth and on a changing of the guard generation wise. The real thing that has made society incredibly less racist over the last 50 years (American society at least) wasn't just the civil rights movement, but the fact that all the old racists have died off. With gay rights too, generally the younger you are the more supportive of it you are. Progress on this front ultimately depends on older generations dying off. Cynical, but true.

Generally people's political ideas don't change drastically over their lives. And putting aside issues of senility, people are generally slower to adapt to technology as they get older. With people living to be 200 I fear society will stagnate.

However it will be an interesting, and positively explosive contrast in that the "immortal" group stuck in the past and slow to adapt will control a good amount of the world's wealth and political power, whereas the majority of population will be more dynamic, numerous, and poor. Of course one could argue that is how life is today, but it'd be much worse.

Plus how bored would one get with a lifespan of 200 years? Especially with plenty of money at their disposal. If you think the super-wealthy are poorly behaved now, just wait.

Also, assuming someone doesn't spend 200 years hosting decadent parties on their yacht, think of how much intelligence and power one can accumulate. Imagine too the almost mystical character these "immortals" would take on. That would give someone quite a superiority complex.

I think Democracy only functions, as De Toqueville said, because of a rough equality between people. With such a drastic change to society that super-long lifespans would yield it seems the "immortals" would install some kind of tyrannical oligarchy, or the poor masses would rise up and install some tyrannical communist state.

Of course, I'm an optimist.

[Wycoff]

Good post, Ozzy.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Eli
I want immortality because in this short life I don't have time to experience all I want to experience.

ditto

In addition, I don't want to lose all those experiences in death. With my 40th birthday staring me square in the face, I've been thinking a lot about the inevitability and permanence of death. Belief in an afterlife would be very comforting, but I'm an atheist.

Of course, given an infinite amount of time, even if practically immortal, we will all die anyways. Sooner or later an accident or illness or murder will get us. And whether you live to be 100, 1,000, or 1,000,000, you will be dead far longer than you will be alive, and you'll be just as gone. Eventually, entropy wins the die toss.

[Cort Haus]

I don't agree with Ozzy's 'youth rights' critique, nor his contempt for the elderly, but this thread shouldn't be about debate over ages of consent and adulthood.

Atrophied and rigid mind sets would be among the first things that successful longevity would reverse, so the arguments about 'racist' and 'anti-gay' old people would not apply, nor would they be unable to adapt to technology. It seems as if the 'youth rights' is a cover for a philosophy that hates old people, and cheers their demise.

It'll be great when Ozzy grows up. He might even outgrow his misanthropic and pessimistic wordview.

[OzzyKP]

I can't decide if you are deliberately trolling me, or if you are just an ******* and hadn't realized it.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


ditto

In addition, I don't want to lose all those experiences in death. With my 40th birthday staring me square in the face, I've been thinking a lot about the inevitability and permanence of death. Belief in an afterlife would be very comforting, but I'm an atheist.

Of course, given an infinite amount of time, even if practically immortal, we will all die anyways. Sooner or later an accident or illness or murder will get us. And whether you live to be 100, 1,000, or 1,000,000, you will be dead far longer than you will be alive, and you'll be just as gone. Eventually, entropy wins the die toss.

Yea, with such a grim outlook hanging over one's head I don't know how atheists make it through the day.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I can't decide if you are deliberately trolling me, or if you are just an ******* and hadn't realized it.

It is partly a troll, partly an attempt to open your eyes to your misanthropy, and partly a sober contribution to the discussion.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Cort Haus Atrophied and rigid mind sets would be among the first things that successful longevity would reverse

How do you figure?

[Arrian]

Yea, with such a grim outlook hanging over one's head I don't know how atheists make it through the day.

It would be somewhat comforting to believe in an afterlife, and to believe that there is some deeper meaning to our existence.

But I just don't buy it. :shrug: I just can't help examining it critically, at which point if falls apart for me. Call it a personality trait (or flaw, if you prefer).

Somehow I manage to be happy most of the time.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Yea, with such a grim outlook hanging over one's head I don't know how atheists make it through the day.

Originally posted by Leon Trotsky
But whatever may be the circumstances of my death, I shall die with unshaken faith in the Communist future. This faith in man and in his future gives me even now such power of resistance as cannot be given by any religion . . . I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full.

[Arrian]

As for whether humanity could handle immortality... there are reasons to think no, and reasons to think yes.

No: we've evolved as beings with a limited life span. Look at the problems an (over)abundance of food can wreak on our hunter-gatherer bodies. What would immortality do to our psychies?

Yes: We're an awfully adaptable bunch. It's why we're still around. We might just get through it.

It's not an answer, I know.

...

As for Ozzy's youth angle... well, there is something to what he says. Societal change does seem to be a generational thing. Would immortality result in stagnation?

-Arrian

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Yea, with such a grim outlook hanging over one's head I don't know how atheists make it through the day.

Knowing that life has no purpose other than to live itself to the fullest in order to make the most of its short break from meaninglessness is an incredibly empowering feeling.

[Arrian]

To some, I suppose. I don't feel terribly empowered by the idea that "this is it!" I'm not depressed by it either. It simply is.

-Arrian