First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Post Reply I want to be immortal
29091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 7/10/17 , edited 7/10/17

HateKillingCamels wrote:

even if you were immortal your life would still probably be wasted away working. IT's all pointless anyway, why make it longer.


Because a longer life of pain is better then a short life of bliss?

Better to live longer and experience more....my life goal is actually to eventually get into research into immortality but i have a long time to go to reach that goal i have smaller goals to fulfil first.

I suffer from panic attacks about death thinking about it can send me into a depressive state where i just eat and panic and am unable to sleep for 2-3 days due to an extreme phobia of death even now it's kicking in discussing this...that's a big part of my drive.

I honestly think we will make it in my life time but even if we don't getting close to it is atleast something then people don't need to suffer the worst fate a human can have imo death...(well unless they were murdered once becoming immortal) but.....wishful thinking sure but the world needs wishful thinking and working towards the impossible sometimes imo.


runec wrote:

We are not physically or mentally equipped for immortality. Even if you could eliminate the aging process, the brain isn't set up for limitless term operation and storage.

The transfer of consciousness would be a whole different can of worms. Transferring memories to a new body or computer network isn't "you" its just your file storage. Any technology that could supposedly transfer your mind would be plagued by the idea of whether or not the "new" you is actually you. Did "you" actually transfer or did you "you" die in the process and a copy of you wake up in your place? Short of unlocking the power to speak with the dead you could never answer that question.

It all comes around to the problem of destructive copying. Best exemplified by good ol' Star Trek. Do the transporters in Star Trek actually transport people, or do they kill you the moment you step into them and create a functional copy of you at a new location? There's no way to know and the Star Trek universe could be one where untold billions of people unknowingly march to their deaths day in and day out.





1. Sure but the brain can be added onto or adjusted in theory.
2. It is you but what people class as "you" is different and subjective to each individual a person is mostly their memories and conciousness which is dictated by the brain copying your memories into something else it wouldn't be biologically you but it would be still you imo.
3. Copy or transfer doesn't really matter still functions as a form of immortality you would live on (your memories and personality).

It all comes down to what do you count as you the old argument if you take a ship apart one by one replacing it is it the same boat some people say no some like me say yes to an extent.


Needless to say all the problems that exist have possible solutions we just need to find them or attempt to atleast.


Humms wrote:

Technically you could.

You just need all the money in the world, the best health and care, and perfect genetics.

At most you might make it to 130 with the best possible lifestyle.

The only real way of being immortal is to have your name in history.


yes that is the only way "For now"
Who knows what the future may hold.
589 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / A Blue Marble
Offline
Posted 7/10/17
I'm not too sure about immortality, but more so having a considerably longer lifespan. This stems from my curiosity of how far the human race can go and what we can achieve in the future. We're a young species and there's so much that we don't know or haven't conceived yet or just haven't achieved yet, so I'd like to be around for such spectacular breakthroughs.
47837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / SC
Offline
Posted 7/10/17
well to each his own

not me though
4206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / New Mexico
Offline
Posted 7/10/17
Personally I wouldn't want immortality.
3382 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Québec - CANADA
Offline
Posted 7/11/17
The only kind of immortality that I could accept is one where my mind is digitally kept in a cyborg.

This way, if it ever come to it, I can simply turn myself off.
I could also change body and experience the ultimate creative capacity which is the digital world.

Don't you dare give me immortality with flesh and blood. For all we know, anyone with that would end up stuck in some hole or under water until the Earth is smashed to bits or whatever breaks it... which then follow with a really long time in space not reaching anything.
33172 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/11/17
No thanks I don't want to work forever
Posted 7/11/17

anfex wrote:
Don't think that if we change and become immortal beings then the purpose of our "lives" or existence changes too?

I mean hasn't this purpose changed over time? Take for example that time when we were living in caves. What was our purpose back then? I think that it was to fulfill the most basic needs that we had, which I think they were to eat, to reproduce, to sleep, to mention a few ones. And as can be noted, these needs weren't that different from other animals. While in contrast nowadays our needs are more complex as you mention before; it is not enough to just fulfill those basic needs; we look for more.


I think this depends on how far back you look to determine a shift in "purpose". Admittedly, the pursuit of happiness, freedom, and all that is still a relatively new perspective on human life. Fundamentally, I feel that one would/could argue that we're all still essentially trying to make those basic needs met and are only overcomplicating the requirements of life to add meaning to it. To that end, I would say that we are still focused on matching the basic needs and the additional stuff is focused on convenience of said needs. My examples are as followed:

--
Example 1: Shelter
Essential: Something to protect us from the elements of the planet, to secure ourselves from potential trespassers/attackers, and to rest.

Modern Day: "I would like a two-car garage because I have these two vehicles and we have to be in a neighborhood with access to a decent Internet and Television plan."

--
Example 2: Income
Essential (not so modern, but recent days in human history): To have enough income to feed self and family, to pay for our shelter.

Modern Day: To have enough to buy video games, to pay for streaming media, to have a nice house, and to afford the "good things" in life.

--
Example 3: Food
Essential: Either to hunt animals or grow various crops to feed self and family.
Essential: More Modernized: To purchase food from a person who handles livestock and crop. Or to purchase from a store that stocks these things to feed self and family.

Modern Day: "I really want to eat at that lovely restaurant at least once. I know it averages $25 a plate but we can afford to do this once or twice a year. It's healthy and a treat for us. Oh, we should really make sure we're purchasing organize, GMO-free, gluten-free food for ourselves and the kids - it's healthier and will keep us alive longer."

--

You'll notice that I essentially agreed with you, to a point. Our "needs" or "purpose" has expanded based on society in the recent 200-300 years of our lifespan (small drop in the bucket of time, yes). Now imagine if nobody died - we would have to contemplate the source of the immortality first and foremost. Does it mean that you're digital/mechanical? Trapped in a virtual world without meaning? Or trapped into a physical form that no longer has the needs for shelter, food, or other "core" requirements of humanity?

If these were the only two routes, I would say that the purpose of humanity would be to reach the stage where they can "evolve" to one of these beings (of course, this would never be free as long as we live in a capitalist-dominated world). If it just means that your human life would never end, my suggestion is that we'd become even more vain and focused on outward appearances than we are now. When everyone is going to live for 500-1,000 years, I would say that income and appearances (materialism and personal appearances) would likely become the dominant theme. Upkeep, plastic surgery, "revitalizing youth", and so forth.

The only difference here is what we're "striving" for. In the end, it would have less meaning simply because life itself would have less meaning. If you look at the evolution of mankind (not just as a species, but also as a society), a trend that's starting to surface is that the longer we live - the more materialistic we become. When the average lifespan of a human was less than 30 years of age, we focused on making more of ourselves (reproduction), making sure our offspring had everything they need to grow "old", to take pride in our work ethics as long as we lived, and to forever be aware of the mortality of man (look at literature as it evolved with our expanding lifespan).

Even in the timespan of a few hundred years (200-500), we believe that our "current selves" are the more evolved form of our species (on both social and physical aspects). We look at earlier societies as "primitive" or "immature". Heck, even the current generation would argue that the Baby Boomers of the 50's and 60's were primitive based on their views on gender and equality. So your argument regarding the view of evolution of mankind is quite true; however, I would disagree that it debunks the thought that immortality would be boring.

Again, it boils down to how immortality would be achieved. The OP changed from the idea of "never dying" to "dying when you choose to die". The latter would mean that you put a hard limit on when you're doing to die. I think this would definitely change the definition of death in how we handle, cope, and prepare for it. It would no longer be a surprise that would traumatize some. It would become a ceremony, like a wedding or a birthday ("deathday"?) party.

Regarding branching out across the universe, it would be more plausible if we knew that we would live for as long as we wanted (or forever). At the same time, just like any other progress in society - not everyone is going to jump onto the "Let's go around the universe and see if we can survive for an indefinite amount of time while exploring!" train. Many people would stay grounded, unsure of the meaning or purpose of their life. If you can sleep in your parents' house for 70 years without batting an eye, what purpose would that give you or your parents? Would "Generation Infinite" be the generation that would simply be too apathetic to continue reproduction? It's a thought.

In the modern age, there's more people turning away from the traditional view of "get job, get girl/boy, get married, have children" (heck, I'm one of them). If you knew you could live forever without worrying about time limits, why would you do these things in your first 20-50 years of life? Perhaps we would develop another "traditional sense" of life that people would latch onto. Maybe we would develop another sense of purpose when it came to life. As it stands, 100+ year olds are usually on the verge of just wanting Death to take them - they've lived long enough, seen enough change, and live in a world that just doesn't resonate with them any longer. So I wonder how the human mind would cope with expanding that time even further.
-----------

Thoughts on Grammar/Punctuation/Etc


5330 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/11/17

Ryulightorb wrote:


HateKillingCamels wrote:

even if you were immortal your life would still probably be wasted away working. IT's all pointless anyway, why make it longer.


Because a longer life of pain is better then a short life of bliss?



I mean that's a very subjective opinion.
29091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 7/11/17

HateKillingCamels wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


HateKillingCamels wrote:

even if you were immortal your life would still probably be wasted away working. IT's all pointless anyway, why make it longer.


Because a longer life of pain is better then a short life of bliss?



I mean that's a very subjective opinion.


Well of course most are
5330 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/11/17

Ryulightorb wrote:

Well of course most are


True, but I wouldn't mind being explained as to why you think that.
29091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 7/11/17

HateKillingCamels wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

Well of course most are


True, but I wouldn't mind being explained as to why you think that.


Eh not to complex but I don't think a short blissful life is worth it if it just ends so short I would rather have a longer life no matter what.
Death is the ultimate end in my opinion the ultimate evil in a way that I think would be great to avoid.

Mix that in with some thantophobia and my belief that quality over quantity is not always correct you have a reasonable view of why I think like I do.
5501 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 7/11/17

21stCenturyGemini wrote:


runec wrote:

We are not physically or mentally equipped for immortality. Even if you could eliminate the aging process, the brain isn't set up for limitless term operation and storage.

The transfer of consciousness would be a whole different can of worms. Transferring memories to a new body or computer network isn't "you" its just your file storage. Any technology that could supposedly transfer your mind would be plagued by the idea of whether or not the "new" you is actually you. Did "you" actually transfer or did you "you" die in the process and a copy of you wake up in your place? Short of unlocking the power to speak with the dead you could never answer that question.

It all comes around to the problem of destructive copying. Best exemplified by good ol' Star Trek. Do the transporters in Star Trek actually transport people, or do they kill you the moment you step into them and create a functional copy of you at a new location? There's no way to know and the Star Trek universe could be one where untold billions of people unknowingly march to their deaths day in and day out.



There are, supposedly, children who come back with the memories of past lives (very allegedly, and take with a grain of salt)..

...so perhaps the universe has a way of achieving this 'transference' already and we just may not be aware of it.

But, anyway.... I don't like the idea of immortality. Losing all my friends and family, while watching humanity make the same mistakes for several thousand years seems a bit like a curse, IMO

Of course, if humanity ever manages to become a spacefaring race, well... then I'd have to reconsider. I would absolutely love to see what is out there in the rest of the universe.


Hmm, this is an interesting point of coming back alive with past memories. But then I die, I come back to life with all my past memories to die again sounds tiring. Immortality is the natural next step of evolution. If humanity ever discovers the drug to immortality, almost everyone would use it immediately, so you won't have to worry about losing all your friends and family.

I too like the idea of spacefaring, the same reason I like some horror FPS from time to time, or sim games, it is a rather interesting experience.
3140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/11/17
being immortal would be really boring after a while though
Posted 7/11/17 , edited 7/11/17
Nah.
We must all die.
It's what makes men truly equal.

14964 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/11/17
Life is more than happiness. I'd be interested in experiencing immortality.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.