Thats the only thing which makes sense, seems to me. If any dimension of existence can extend into infinity (immortality) then expansion to completely unlimited existence is the only option.
Immortality - What would it do with humans?
- Thread starter Terxpahseyton
- Start date
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
It's hard to recognize satire when, as Civvver pointed out, there are a lot of people here who have expressed that almost word for word in full seriousness. But I stand happily corrected.
Some of you don't read or watch enough science fiction.
Highlander handled the issue of overpopulation by making the people with the Immortal gene sterile - they can't produce offspring either before or after their first death, or even if they die without the immortality process kicking in (it takes a violent death to make it happen; a slow easy death means a permanent death, with no Quickening).
There's a series of novels by Sheri S. Tepper about immortality. Unknown to the regular citizens, scientists had been working on it and one day the announcement came that all currently-living children and future children would be immortal (barring murder and lethal accidents). The process would not work for current adults.
Next thing you know, adults are murdering children right, left, and center, out of sheer jealousy.
The children chosen to become the new leaders of the society that will arise from this are given an education in leadership and how to reshape (and not reshape) their new culture. The training is scheduled to take 50 years - a drop in a bucket.
One problem the new immortal culture discovers decades later is that creativity has stagnated. No new plays are being written, new books are rare, hardly anyone bothers creating new music - the main character realizes this when he notices his clarinet - he'd been a good clarinet player as a child, and on impulse he picks up the instrument... and it falls apart from so many years of disuse.
There was a Doctor Who character a couple of years ago - a guest character named Ashildr, who was made immortal by the Doctor because it was the only way to save her life. She was born a Viking girl in the Middle Ages, but as her story arc progressed, her immortality eventually became a curse to her. Her body remained young, but she discovered that humans were never meant to be conscious that long. She kept diaries to remind her of things she'd experienced in her life, and it got to the point where she could no longer remember her own name. So she called herself "Me." It's not that she had Alzheimers - the process that made her immortal kept her healthy. But after billions, even trillions, of years (she was present at the end of the universe, in one episode), nothing really mattered to her anymore.
My own take on immortality is that I don't think I'd want it. After all, the universe itself isn't going to be around forever, and I wouldn't want to be there at the end, feeling that everything turned out to be pointless (it's already hard enough knowing this now, that nobody's getting out of it alive).
A longer life, sure - provided it's one in a healthy body with a healthy mind, and the means to enjoy that life. Poul Anderson gave his Time Patrol agents longevity treatments in that series of short stories and novels. Policing millions of years of history, making sure it all goes correctly, is a time-consuming job (sorry for the pun, but there's no other way to adequately describe it), so keeping the agents healthy and clear-minded and giving them a longer lifespan just makes sense.
Highlander handled the issue of overpopulation by making the people with the Immortal gene sterile - they can't produce offspring either before or after their first death, or even if they die without the immortality process kicking in (it takes a violent death to make it happen; a slow easy death means a permanent death, with no Quickening).
There's a series of novels by Sheri S. Tepper about immortality. Unknown to the regular citizens, scientists had been working on it and one day the announcement came that all currently-living children and future children would be immortal (barring murder and lethal accidents). The process would not work for current adults.
Next thing you know, adults are murdering children right, left, and center, out of sheer jealousy.
The children chosen to become the new leaders of the society that will arise from this are given an education in leadership and how to reshape (and not reshape) their new culture. The training is scheduled to take 50 years - a drop in a bucket.
One problem the new immortal culture discovers decades later is that creativity has stagnated. No new plays are being written, new books are rare, hardly anyone bothers creating new music - the main character realizes this when he notices his clarinet - he'd been a good clarinet player as a child, and on impulse he picks up the instrument... and it falls apart from so many years of disuse.
There was a Doctor Who character a couple of years ago - a guest character named Ashildr, who was made immortal by the Doctor because it was the only way to save her life. She was born a Viking girl in the Middle Ages, but as her story arc progressed, her immortality eventually became a curse to her. Her body remained young, but she discovered that humans were never meant to be conscious that long. She kept diaries to remind her of things she'd experienced in her life, and it got to the point where she could no longer remember her own name. So she called herself "Me." It's not that she had Alzheimers - the process that made her immortal kept her healthy. But after billions, even trillions, of years (she was present at the end of the universe, in one episode), nothing really mattered to her anymore.
My own take on immortality is that I don't think I'd want it. After all, the universe itself isn't going to be around forever, and I wouldn't want to be there at the end, feeling that everything turned out to be pointless (it's already hard enough knowing this now, that nobody's getting out of it alive).
A longer life, sure - provided it's one in a healthy body with a healthy mind, and the means to enjoy that life. Poul Anderson gave his Time Patrol agents longevity treatments in that series of short stories and novels. Policing millions of years of history, making sure it all goes correctly, is a time-consuming job (sorry for the pun, but there's no other way to adequately describe it), so keeping the agents healthy and clear-minded and giving them a longer lifespan just makes sense.
SF is a wonderful source of brainstormed knowledge into the future
There is a physical/metabolical ageing and there is a psychological ageing.
The psycholocigal ageing starting long before your body starts to wear down.
For example: most people are at age 30-40 not that socially hungry anymore as when they were at age 15-25.
And as more hidden example: your fundamental conceptual development normally decreases strongly from age 14 onward.
I guess that a metabolical immortality that does not change the gene coded psychological evolutionary timetable to optimise offspring will see many immortal people that have no drive anymore between already 80-120 years old.
Last edited:
Why not?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Because even if one country's government starts doing that, all the other ones are going to be putting sanctions on that one country instead of following suit.
It's actually pretty easy to start killing people off without it looking like you are trying to kill them off.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Possibly, but most powerful countries on the planet are liberal democracies, and most of those governments would not follow suit.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Going by Carlin's premise, the "owners of this country" would not want to start killing off the consumers who they rely on to stay rich and get richer.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
That would presuppose a certain degree of pragmatism and long-term thinking.
Why not? The point isnt to be rich anyway. The wealth is only a means to power. Control over others and their lifes...
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
The point is for the money to continue rolling in. Most people who are rich and want to get richer, just want to have more stuff than the guy beside them.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Mandatory Mortal Combat Tournament(that would be broadcasted on pay-per-view) for anyone over the age of 100.
No one is talking about "most people". The richest 1% is getting the 95% of the gains which equals roughly the world situation in 1820. Do you think these people have a mindset and feel bound by the same rules as most people?
Last edited:
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
No, but their wealth relies on the bottom 99% spending money and buying their trinkets.
There is great strenght with the bottom 99% no doubt but what Carlin was talking about is that liberal democracy is largely an illusion for wilfully ignorant...
So, the two kneejerk concerns are overpopulation and cultural stagnation.
What I like to keep in mind is that the proposed 'solution' to these two concerns are to kill off everyone slowly, with one or two decades of decrepitude and dependence. With the poor starting earlier and having a faster fall into these conditions. Obviously.
This is a terrible 'solution'. It's really, really bad. It's not the worst, but goshdarn, it really isn't all that impressive.
We're already overpopulated, we could really use some help on this. And 'population' is only a portion of the I = PAT formula. We could use your help here. We already need your help here. There are literally a gazillion ways that people could help with this. The current 'solution', again, is terrible.
And cultural stagnation? We already have an onus to improve the cultural mileau. In fact, we want to. But, golly, sentencing 1/6th of Baby Boomer women to half a decade of Alzheimer's in the name of 'progress' is hardly progress. The idea that we should force the weakest to suffer in order for things to 'get better' is a little disgusting. If it's really so damn important that things get better, then maybe it's worth a little elbow grease from the people who have such a callous attitude?
And finally, our defeat of the Dragon Tyrant is something that benefits from synergy. Any efforts to conquer aging will draw upon previous efforts as tools and will create additional tools for others to use. It's not a zero sum game. And it's literally life or death.
What I like to keep in mind is that the proposed 'solution' to these two concerns are to kill off everyone slowly, with one or two decades of decrepitude and dependence. With the poor starting earlier and having a faster fall into these conditions. Obviously.
This is a terrible 'solution'. It's really, really bad. It's not the worst, but goshdarn, it really isn't all that impressive.
We're already overpopulated, we could really use some help on this. And 'population' is only a portion of the I = PAT formula. We could use your help here. We already need your help here. There are literally a gazillion ways that people could help with this. The current 'solution', again, is terrible.
And cultural stagnation? We already have an onus to improve the cultural mileau. In fact, we want to. But, golly, sentencing 1/6th of Baby Boomer women to half a decade of Alzheimer's in the name of 'progress' is hardly progress. The idea that we should force the weakest to suffer in order for things to 'get better' is a little disgusting. If it's really so damn important that things get better, then maybe it's worth a little elbow grease from the people who have such a callous attitude?
And finally, our defeat of the Dragon Tyrant is something that benefits from synergy. Any efforts to conquer aging will draw upon previous efforts as tools and will create additional tools for others to use. It's not a zero sum game. And it's literally life or death.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
I agree. Like in any other branch of progress we must step forward in the unknown and try killing the dragon. Anything short of that is coward, retrograde and shortsighted. Not excuses. Maybe we lose our humanity in the process, ok, so? We could evolve into something better. As if humanity was the best thing since fried chicken... Lets be honest, there are some positives but it is full of bad things, we are nothing but a bunch of psychotic chimpanzees after all.
And if it goes terribly wrong and we all die of a horrible and absurd death what would we lost? Some years of slow corruption, illness and mental decay.
And if it goes terribly wrong and we all die of a horrible and absurd death what would we lost? Some years of slow corruption, illness and mental decay.
Last edited:
