Immortalism

El_Machinae

Colour vision since 2018
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
48,283
Location
Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
There are two premises to my immortalism:
  • Involuntary death is a bad thing, it's not the worst thing, but it's a bad thing
  • Reducing involuntary death is something that can be accomplished
So, in my more general musings, I note that most people avoid involuntary death. And we tend to avoid the situations where voluntary death is an accepted option. Now, not all the time. It's not absolute. But, my impression is that a healthy person doesn't want to be sick, and a sick person wants to be healthy. And there are oodles and oodles of causes of death, but they can be chipped away at. And so we should.

Now, I tend to try to think in win/win situations. Not always. But I try. And so, I note that many of the causes of involuntary death are defeatable. And they're defeatable in the way where, if I help you I am also helping myself. Not always, but often.

And finally, I find that most of the objections to curing aging and reducing involuntary death are sociological. And they're problems that already exist. So death is used as tool to slow the advancement of these problems. But that's (imo) a fairly large price to pay for a simple slowdown of a problem we should be handling regardless.
 
I'm not sure immortality from aging and disease is something that should be sought after until we've gotten off this rock. We're a warlike species and being confined to a single planet when the only path to death is murder seems ill-advised given our psychological tendencies.
 
I'm not sure immortality from aging and disease is something that should be sought after until we've gotten off this rock. We're a warlike species and being confined to a single planet when the only path to death is murder seems ill-advised given our psychological tendencies.
Well, if people were immortal, that would take care of the objection some have that no human crew would ever live long enough to reach a planet outside our solar system.

In that case, the problem would be one of overcoming boredom.
 
Well, if people were immortal, that would take care of the objection some have that no human crew would ever live long enough to reach a planet outside our solar system.

In that case, the problem would be one of overcoming boredom.

To be honest, I'm also not sure we'd be loading up onto colony ships en masse if we would survive the journey. The quality of life would be abysmal compared to even a crowded Earth. My point here is that where we're at technologically would make immortality more of a disadvantage than something that makes us 'better'.
 
To be honest, I'm also not sure we'd be loading up onto colony ships en masse if we would survive the journey. The quality of life would be abysmal compared to even a crowded Earth. My point here is that where we're at technologically would make immortality more of a disadvantage than something that makes us 'better'.
I do not see humanity doing anything else, but being a problem to itself. You are hinting at letting every live to be ten, and that's about it. Life will not get any better than that.
 
To be honest, I'm also not sure we'd be loading up onto colony ships en masse if we would survive the journey. The quality of life would be abysmal compared to even a crowded Earth. My point here is that where we're at technologically would make immortality more of a disadvantage than something that makes us 'better'.
It depends on how you define "quality of life" and "boredom."

I wouldn't want to be immortal unless I could also be healthy and have enough to do or think about to keep from going insane from boredom.

This puts me in mind of the Star Trek episode "Plato's Stepchildren" - about a group of immortals with psychokinesis, who bully and torment the only member of their community who doesn't have that power.
 
It depends on how you define "quality of life".

There's nowhere you can go on a ship and one minor mistake or malfunction is an immediate end to everything. The most minor of tasks requires extreme overhead, making everything in your daily life a task of labour. Whereas on a habitable world this labour results in it becoming easier as time passes by, on a ship it'd simply become more and more difficult. There would be no innovation, no new sources of high quality entertainment. You're essentially trapped in a tin can where every action is an immense effort for several lifetimes.

Nah, dawg. I'm not signing on for that.
 
The only thing more ecologically destructive than a rich Westerner is an immortal rich Westerner, who would of course be immortal long before anyone else. Also, old ideas wouldn't die with the old farts but would just kind of stick around in near-perpetuity, as would dictators and so on. Further, this immortality wouldn't be real immortality: people would still die, it's just that death would literally always come in a shocking abrupt way like an accident rather than as an expected "well, we knew something would get him, he was 93 after all" type of event. And there would be no natural retirement age, limiting turnover while condemning people to work indefinitely until they had somehow accumulated enough to live on for an indefinite length of time. And so on, and so forth. Death is not a bug, it's a feature.

Personally, I want to die someday. I don't want to live forever as long as I have good physical health, I want to die after I've put in my time.
 
I suspect the cohort of people who are interested in immortality for themselves are smart, determined, and powerful enough that they aren't going to let sociological objections be much of a hindrance.

Well, yes and no. It's faster if they have assistance. They're not rich and powerful enough to do it on their own. Elon Musk wants humans to be on Mars, but he realized he needed to use public coffers to get us there. Ostensibly, the wealthy will eventually become wealthy enough to do it on their own; the Zuckerberg equivalent in 2200 will probably be able to afford to go. But since medicine is so heavily an information technology, the fact that it can be trickled down so easily means that they'll not need to do it themselves.
 
I'm not sure immortality from aging and disease is something that should be sought after until we've gotten off this rock. We're a warlike species and being confined to a single planet when the only path to death is murder seems ill-advised given our psychological tendencies.
No, we're by far the best thing that's happened to this planet.

Yes, we've caused immeasurable suffering to ourselves and other creatures. But that's the default state of life in the cosmos. Everything suffers. For no reason.

But here we are a life form with ability to realize the pain and suffering we cause. Moreover, people actively work to improve the lot of their fellow travelers in greater and greater capacity over time. We have gone from chopping down every nearby forest and burning every rival village in times of famine to creating international relief networks and managing ecosystems. We cannot help but continue getting smarter and improving ourselves morally, ethically and technologically. Soon will come a time where we won't need to strip the Earth or harm other creatures to sustain ourselves.

Moreover, the only way that life on Earth will survive in the long run is if we reach the stars and take life with us. We are Earth's reproductive system. As with many animals, reproduction is an energetically taxing exercise. We are harming the Earth because right now we have to in order to grow and fulfill our cosmic life reproductive function.

If I could say that mankind has a purpose to exist then I'd have to say it's to keep the torch of life alive in an empty, hostile cosmos.

To be honest, I'm also not sure we'd be loading up onto colony ships en masse if we would survive the journey. The quality of life would be abysmal compared to even a crowded Earth. My point here is that where we're at technologically would make immortality more of a disadvantage than something that makes us 'better'.
The quality of life would be great - you're thinking an order of magnitude too small for the size of a colony ship. Any society that is capable of building a colony ship could easily scale it up and definitely would want to for many reasons. They will have populations equivalent to large terrestrial cities and contain as much physical volume, industry, agriculture and entertainment as large cities if not more.

People can easily spend their entire lives inside the limits of Manhattan and never suffer for it.

It depends on how you define "quality of life" and "boredom."

I wouldn't want to be immortal unless I could also be healthy and have enough to do or think about to keep from going insane from boredom.

This puts me in mind of the Star Trek episode "Plato's Stepchildren" - about a group of immortals with psychokinesis, who bully and torment the only member of their community who doesn't have that power.
Why would you get bored? Or rather, how? An infinite life span means infinite possibilities. You'll be able to do anything you want with decent long-term planning. Eventually you'd be able to do anything you want even without planning as technology improves to the point where we will reach a Star Trek-like state of resource availability. Money will become obsolete - all we need is better across-the-board technology and we will erase scarcity.

We're already on the exponential curve of technological growth, the point of economic liberation I'm talking about probably isn't more than a century off in my estimation.

There's nowhere you can go on a ship and one minor mistake or malfunction is an immediate end to everything. The most minor of tasks requires extreme overhead, making everything in your daily life a task of labour. Whereas on a habitable world this labour results in it becoming easier as time passes by, on a ship it'd simply become more and more difficult. There would be no innovation, no new sources of high quality entertainment. You're essentially trapped in a tin can where every action is an immense effort for several lifetimes.

Nah, dawg. I'm not signing on for that.
This is all wrong.

The ships will be massive. There really wouldn't be a single point of failure - the chance of one of them blowing up is about the same as NYC getting hit with an asteroid tomorrow. It's conceivable but highly unlikely.

As to boredom and lack of entertainment, again I point to NYC and ask if you really couldn't make a go of staying there forever? Because that's what a colony ship would be like. Only bigger, more advanced and with all the modern features.

Plus you guys act like it will be cut off from Earth. It never would be! It'd be in constant contact and though the time lag will get extreme, no colony ship would ever be truly isolated in every sense of the word.

The only thing more ecologically destructive than a rich Westerner is an immortal rich Westerner, who would of course be immortal long before anyone else. Also, old ideas wouldn't die with the old farts but would just kind of stick around in near-perpetuity, as would dictators and so on. Further, this immortality wouldn't be real immortality: people would still die, it's just that death would literally always come in a shocking abrupt way like an accident rather than as an expected "well, we knew something would get him, he was 93 after all" type of event. And there would be no natural retirement age, limiting turnover while condemning people to work indefinitely until they had somehow accumulated enough to live on for an indefinite length of time. And so on, and so forth. Death is not a bug, it's a feature.

Personally, I want to die someday. I don't want to live forever as long as I have good physical health, I want to die after I've put in my time.
I am of the opinion that given enough time, people can and do change. Given infinite life spans, people will have time to adjust to, accept and eventually become comfortable with all sorts of other people and ideologies. Take gay marriage acceptance - sure dying old people helped society progress but I personally know a lot of older folk that came to terms with it and even accepted it as a good thing just from being exposed to gay culture (if there is such a thing) over time. My own grandmother made such a transformation in the 4 years I lived with her.
 
Last edited:
I don't even think rich Westerners will be the first to achieve immortality. I tend to think that the kind of technology required to beat death will enrich all of us in an infinite tangential web of knock-on effects.

We all know the many benefits the space program brought us in areas that have nothing to do with space flight. Immortality will be like that in that it will require advancements on many fronts, leading to advancement in many other non-related fields. Those same technologies will wipe out scarcity and begin to mercilessly level the economic playing field by lifting everyone up instead of dragging some down. By the time we have immortality we will have already solved poverty.


For the record, I'm half convinced that my generation will be the last to die or possibly the first to live forever. I plan on freezing myself on the off chance that I don't make it that long, however. What's the worst that could happen - I stay dead?
 
You have a very idealistic view of humanity and what we can do with current technology, Hobbs. I admire that.
 
Well, yes and no. It's faster if they have assistance. They're not rich and powerful enough to do it on their own. Elon Musk wants humans to be on Mars, but he realized he needed to use public coffers to get us there. Ostensibly, the wealthy will eventually become wealthy enough to do it on their own; the Zuckerberg equivalent in 2200 will probably be able to afford to go. But since medicine is so heavily an information technology, the fact that it can be trickled down so easily means that they'll not need to do it themselves.

They don't need to get the funding in a particularly publicly visible way though. Calico essentially siphons all its funding off of advertisers and advertisement-watchers.
 
That's why I mentioned velocity. Calico would not be where it's at today without the Human Genome Project. And their hundred million dollars is a big thing, but it's only a drop in the bucket compared to the potential. I care about the velocity, since I have people who I don't want to see die if they don't want to.

The only thing more ecologically destructive than a rich Westerner is an immortal rich Westerner, who would of course be immortal long before anyone else.

Firstly, no. Not 'long before'. The low-hanging fruit when it comes to preventing death is amongst the poor. We're trying to stop people from dying. Smallpox eradication, malaria victories, polio eradication, etc. are all vastly, vastly cheaper ways of buying time in huge increments. You're looking at immortality as some type of endgame. But it's not. Preventing involuntary death is the endgame.

You also listed a series of problem (some of which are mostly a problem of reproduction. A Western family tradition of 2.3 kids produces way more ecological destruction after 100 years than a rich Westerner). These problems need solutions. Absolutely. But is the very best solution in the toolkit that people spend a decade plus being physically handicapped, potentially mentally handicapped, and dependent upon the charity of others?
 
Back
Top Bottom