It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Astyanax
But a modestly extended lifespan -- yes, by all means.
In The City and the Stars, Arthur C. Clarke describes a society in which people live a thousand years at a time, then are painlessly deprived of life, while their personalities and a self-chosen selection of their memories are uploaded into the memory banks of their city. These personalities and memories are resurrected in a new body after a few millennia, to run the whole course again. This seems like a better arrangement than immortality, though I think 150 years or so at a time might be preferable to a thousand.
However, Clarke's novel also points up the inevitable result of such immoderate longevity: social stagnation, leading ultimately to decay. That's the problem with immortality, really, in the end. It might be good for the individual, but it's fatal to the species.
Finally, if the above arguments fail to convince, consider this: the wish to live forever is greedy, selfish and rather cowardly. It is, in a word, ignoble. Long live death.