First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Post Reply I want to be immortal
1607 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / US
Offline
Posted 7/11/17
The first that needs to be considered is what type of immortality. There are generally 2 variations.

The first is essentially curing old age, where all the normal stuff can still kill us, but our bodies don't decay naturally. In this case, overpopulation and eventually war for resources is the ultimate end. Maybe we'll advance before then, maybe not.

The second is straight up not dying. This would lead to a lot of misery (dependent on how the physique changes with time and how we feel pain, hunger, etc. even if they do nothing) or a lot of people waiting as we gain more resources. Overpopulation, yes, but since we don't need resources it would matter less.

The main idea applies to both questions though. In general, I would love the chance if I could choose to die when I want (applied to either type) and those around me were immortal too.
But I only say this knowing that I am a fairly motivated individual and that loves to learn am where most of my work is mental. As such, living, learning, and experiencing for lifetimes, not just a lifetime, would be great. Maybe I'd have enough time to get a girlfriend.

However, it is a greatly personal thing. I believe we give our lives meaning. I can't deny that death is a great motivator for doing so. So someone less motivated (or if I hit a slump) and immortal probably would be a drain.

One final point is that society is definitely not ready for immortality. See resource wars and misery points prior. It's not a tech thing so much as a people thing. Even with birth rates declining, if people don't die overpopulation will happen. Our society and current tech can't handle that.




Last, some pictures to respond in general and summarize

5637 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Online
Posted 7/11/17
Fred isn't sure why his tech isn't showing through
40799 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / HI
Offline
Posted 7/11/17
I dont think that is a good idea, for one you will out live most of your loved ones and that can be tough for sure. Imagine if you went blind or amputated a body part, you would have to live with that forever.
anfex 
1088 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/11/17

I want to point out again that I do NOT agree with immortality, that I'm just having a discussion because I want to practice my writing.

About the following argument:


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:


I think that they are not the same needs just more complicated, but instead, I think that they are new needs that were born when we changed through time.

I want you to take a look at the following graph taken from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs:


In it, the most basic needs, the physiological ones, are air, water, food, clothing, shelter, and sex. The safety needs, to mention a few ones, are physical safety and economy safety.

Do you think that the need physical safety is the same as one of the physiological ones but more complicated? or do think that this need is just additional stuff? Well, in reality, it is something different which absence can cause post-traumatic stress disorder or transgenerational trauma, while in the case of the absence of the physiological ones cause death.

So in summary, they are different and also important. Some layers are more important than others. Additionally, some of the needs were created when our brains changed over time.



Lel, you just reminded me what we were discussing in this thread here.

Which is why immortality is a good or a bad thing. Right?

Ok, so your point in the previous quote is that if we become immortals then we will lose our humanity right? If that is the case then why the definition of humanity can't change with us? Or why we can't just adopt a new term? like Saiyan?

About the increasing number of bad things that people do. I think that it is just a result of a world more connected thanks to technology, in other words, it hasn't changed, it is just that the information of what people do is more easy to access nowadays.

I think that being boring is subjective because let me ask you this: do like football (soccer)? probably not due to that this sport is not that popular in USA.



Most of these problems will be solved when people change their way of thinking because it hasn't been the first time. Remember when we used to believe that Earth was the centre of the universe?

Off topic: Do you know how much time did I spend writing this post? 2 f**ing hours. I'm f**ing slow!!!
7216 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / A garbage bin.
Online
Posted 7/11/17
Nah, you can be immortal. Life is too depressing for me, am I right ma dudes?

ha
ha
ha....


yeah.
37610 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 7/11/17
I don't want to be immortal, but I want to be able to decide when to die.
14255 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 7/11/17
I think if anything, a long life would make me more ambitious since ability/accomplishments is limited by a short lifespan. This concept of human limit encourages a "fixed mindset" which can have profound effects on the course of a person's life. When we have this concept that our potential abilities are fixed, we don't strive to grow and depending on whether we believe we have high or low ability, we can either become afraid of making mistakes and coast through learning or give up too easily and believe in the zero sum game that life is pointless without (relative) talent. You can cause such changes in people whether you tell them their IQ is 150 or 50 given the dogma of intelligence testing.

"Ryff has found that those who report a sense of continued growth and development as a person also tend to score higher in self-acceptance, purpose in life, positive relationships with others, the capacity to manage effectively one's environment, and a sense of autonomy in life (see here). In fact, all of these components of well-being are interrelated because they reinforce each other.
Ryff has also found that the drive for personal growth decreases with age, most strikingly between midlife and old age. As Ryff notes, opportunities for continued growth and development and for meaningful experiences may be limited for people as they age. Which is unfortunate considering that older people report that they value personal growth and humans are living much longer today than ever before."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/is-it-time-for-a-personal-growth-mindset/

When you become immortal, your limits are nigh impossible to define.
1415 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/11/17 , edited 7/11/17

Ryulightorb wrote:

runec wrote:

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.



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.


Copy or transfer doesn't really matter? I don't understand how the thought of death, the cessation of you yourself, is so terrifying to you, but you aren't bothered by the idea of dying only to be replaced by such a perfect doppelganger that no one even knows you're gone. That's effectively what the 'copy' solution would be, whether the new you is a computer program, or a beamed-in clone.

On the original topic, I don't see immortality being even a remotely good thing. For one, overpopulation is already a problem. What's going to happen if everyone lives forever? I suppose you could say we'd just stop having kids, but how messed up would that be? A world with no kids would be pretty horrible, imo. Not to mention it would be a major human rights violation to codify a 'no children' rule.
Would living forever be nice in some ways? Yeah, I suppose so. But it would also be horrible on a global scale. Stagnation as everyone gets set in their ways, the same people getting more and more delusional over hundreds of years, etc.
5450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24
Online
Posted 7/11/17 , edited 7/11/17

foraslan wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

runec wrote:

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.



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.


Copy or transfer doesn't really matter? I don't understand how the thought of death, the cessation of you yourself, is so terrifying to you, but you aren't bothered by the idea of dying only to be replaced by such a perfect doppelganger that no one even knows you're gone. That's effectively what the 'copy' solution would be, whether the new you is a computer program, or a beamed-in clone.

On the original topic, I don't see immortality being even a remotely good thing. For one, overpopulation is already a problem. What's going to happen if everyone lives forever? I suppose you could say we'd just stop having kids, but how messed up would that be? A world with no kids would be pretty horrible, imo. Not to mention it would be a major human rights violation to codify a 'no children' rule.
Would living forever be nice in some ways? Yeah, I suppose so. But it would also be horrible on a global scale. Stagnation as everyone gets set in their ways, the same people getting more and more delusional over hundreds of years, etc.


If we were immortal there would be even more reasons to spread the human species to others planets. Terraforming mars and other planets would become a feasible possibility as the time it takes to make it habitable would be no issue. Interstellar travel would become opened up to us even without the use of wormholes/traveling faster than the speed of light. Overpopulation is a problem to mortal humanity, who doesn't have the ability/time to spread its wings into the cosmos and colonize worlds. It would be no issue to the immortal version of us meaning humanity would evolve not become stagnant. How did you all of a sudden come up with the IMMORTALITY = NO KID. That isn't even remotely related to this issue. The only way that would become an issue is if (hypothetically) half of humanity was immortal and the other half refused the "immortality pill" thus creating a schism in what goals and what is seen as beneficial for each side. Even then humans having kids (mortal or immortal) is of no problem to us if we solved our "overpopulation issues" through expansion into the cosmos.

WHICH will be the next logical step for an Immortal race.
29543 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 7/12/17

foraslan wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

runec wrote:

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.



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.


Copy or transfer doesn't really matter? I don't understand how the thought of death, the cessation of you yourself, is so terrifying to you, but you aren't bothered by the idea of dying only to be replaced by such a perfect doppelganger that no one even knows you're gone. That's effectively what the 'copy' solution would be, whether the new you is a computer program, or a beamed-in clone.

On the original topic, I don't see immortality being even a remotely good thing. For one, overpopulation is already a problem. What's going to happen if everyone lives forever? I suppose you could say we'd just stop having kids, but how messed up would that be? A world with no kids would be pretty horrible, imo. Not to mention it would be a major human rights violation to codify a 'no children' rule.
Would living forever be nice in some ways? Yeah, I suppose so. But it would also be horrible on a global scale. Stagnation as everyone gets set in their ways, the same people getting more and more delusional over hundreds of years, etc.




It's terrifying because i won't exist in the world no longer it's hard to explain unless you are scared by it, it's like asking someone who is scared of poverty why they are scared of poverty etc.

A copy of me would still be me i would still be living in a sense in my eyes so whilst that doesn't get rid of the fear that is mostly a compromise that gives me some feelings of refuge.

Hard to explain a phobia ;P .


Overpopulation is a problem but once we spread throughout the universe which is a possibility then it doesn't matter as much also rules can be put in place to stop it overpopulation isn't a good reason to not have immortality exist.

Stagnation is possible but people change not everyone gets set in their ways.

Both those things are bad things but not enough to warrant not going for immortality imo.
5637 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Online
Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/12/17

fredreload wrote:


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.


Without having to come back alive from the dead, can you suddenly gain a piece of memory without learning? If the memory is stored in the structure of the brain, would you know how to access it?

Let's say I give the brain an upgrade in hardware and add in some neurons as a hard drive, would I automatically be able to access it?

You might not be able to access this new found hard drive, someone would have to manually direct the electrical synapse into this hard drive for you.

Even then would you know what it is?

Well, bringing your head close to another head probably would not work , but I think Tesla was onto something

Imagine, bringing a light bulb close to your head and you know what the light bulb thinks, pretty cool heh
55081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/17
-start cutting everyone head off- :D



5637 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Online
Posted 7/12/17 , edited 7/12/17

JanusCascade wrote:

-start cutting everyone head off- :D





Lol, the point is to read each other's mind freely, or having a storage device, don't go around chopping people's heads off
55081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/17

fredreload wrote:


JanusCascade wrote:

-start cutting everyone head off- :D





Lol, the point is to read each other's mind freely, or having a storage device, don't go around chopping people's heads off


B-but its the rule in Highlander movies! :p There can be only One!!! :p
21470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/12/17
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.