Immortality: The Possible Science with Impossible Moral Implications (Part 2/2)

Part One

This is a continuation of the first part of my series concerning real-life examples of immortality and how we can implement these things to possibly create immortal humans.

Part two mostly consists of my speculation on the subject based on my research, so it might not be everyone's cup of tea.

If you aren't convinced immortality is possible, I'd highly suggest reading the first thread. If you've just stumbled upon this series but are already convinced human immortality is possible, read on ...

"My Opinion of Human Immortality"



Life is precious. That's the basic saying many remind themselves of when they want to live the limited life they have to the fullest. But what if we didn't have to fear death? What if that life never ended from natural causes? That's the question I'd like you to ponder as we journey into the exciting and troubling moral implications of human immortality.

Basically, the moral debate behind humanoid negligible senescence (biological immortality) boils down to a simple question: "Is it a good or a bad thing?" While I don't purport myself to have the correct answer, I'll hopefully shed some light on why many agree and disagree on a way to make humans immortal.

First let's begin with the "Pros" of immortality ...

The first thing that people would find advantageous after becoming immortal is the fact you have a potentially infinite amount of time on your hands to accomplish what you always dreamed. Those who gave up some of their more ambitious dreams because they lacked time to prepare enough initial resources can now wait as long as they need until they're ready to launch a company, or start a movement.

Politicians can also afford to be patient in forwarding their policies, potentially eliminating the backlash and anxiety when rolling-out comprehensive reforms.

Government spending on healthcare would go significantly down, assuming everyone has access to immortality, due to the fact that the ill-effects of old age no longer exist.

Also, there's the obvious fact that becoming immortal means you'll never die. This would alleviate many of those who have particularly strong fears of death.

Then there are the "Cons" accompanying any significant change such as this ...



The means to cause immortality may be unequally distributed. In other words, the rich may have access to this miracle while the poor don't. This would cause tension between classes, and potentially exacerbate the wealth gap due to the rich having unlimited time to accumulate money.

But if immortality can be equally distributed, there would still be problems.

For example, competitiveness would take a big hit, affecting the profitability of individuals and companies. Companies won't feel the need to constantly invest into projects to stay on top because they have as much time as possible to become successful.

Perhaps the biggest problem of all would be overpopulation. Safely assuming people will keep getting born, the population will skyrocket. Resources would run dry, and planet Earth will be completely unable to sustain us.

This isn't even mentioning the rife boredom in a population having lived the same things a hundred times before, and the possible imperfections in the means to achieve immortality such as health problems.

So, from weighing the pros and the cons, you'd think immortality isn't worth it. But what you might not realize is that these cons can all be fixed quite easily, assuming humanity keeps innovating and people are accepting of seemingly fascist reforms.



Immortality would have to be distributed equally by building up supplies until the means to immortality become cheap. Laws will have to be made to make companies fulfill a minimum amount of investments before a certain amount of time. The population, however evil it may sound, would have to be temporarily sterilized by the government after receiving immortality, preventing conception. The sterilization could be lifted when the population decreases noticeably from reasons unrelated to aging. People could store unneeded memories into a sort of "consciousness-database" so as to prevent life becoming too familiar. Finally, imperfections in the immortality administration would have to be sorted-out long before people willingly became subjects.

None of this matters, though, if the people disagree with becoming immortal. Sure, many fantasize about it now, but when you actually get the choice you'll be surprised how many people actually want to pass-away of their own volition. So, is it even worth it?

The answer is: It entirely depends on how much other un-related technologies and moral reasoning's of the populace innovate from the present till whenever immortality is achieved in the future.

If immortality is achieved today, I'd be highly against releasing it to any of the public or even our leaders/representatives. But, if it occurs far enough in the future when we hopefully evolve morally and technologically as a species, only then would I seriously consider it.

In conclusion, I just want to make it evidentalky clear that These are mostly all my own theories as to the future of this technology, which is based on my logic and research into the subject.

If you'd like to learn more about the subject, and reach your own conclusions, visit the sources linked at the bottom of my post.

I hope you all enjoyed this series! As always, don't forget to star, flag, and comment. I'll be posting profound threads such as these on a daily basis, so don't miss out!


Links

Newsweek

Berkeley

Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Nevermind. Problem solved.

a reply to: Passerby1996

I feel in such a way that "human immortality" is eqivalent to endless death.

To live and die as a human, and move on to the next realm of life, is to truly be immortal. Trapped within one confine forever, is likened to eternal hell.

a reply to: Passerby1996

Just edit the post, you can edit the title right there.

EDIT:

Now, to actually comment on the topic!

I've given this a lot of thought myself. It's a long running joke in my family that when I was maybe 9, I told my parents that I wanted to be cryogenically frozen. Not that I was at any unusual risk of dying nor did I have any experience with friends or family dying at that point in my life but even by that time, mortality had already been on my radar for a couple years.

There are several things that concern me about drastic extension to the human lifespan but I'll start with a biggie:

Memories fade with time, the less frequently they are accessed, the fainter they become and even the more frequently accessed memories become corrupted until only the essential elements remain untouched. Would it be common to have completely forgotten your childhood by 200? The first 100 years of your life by 300? This might actually negate the boredom you spoke of but it has its own implications. Imagine that you could only reasonably remember a few hundred years of your life at any point and you lived to be a thousand? We experience this to a degree now with our stages of life but what about if we stretch the adult "stage" out over hundreds or thousands of years? You could be 900 years old and just like you don't remember being an infant, you might not have any real memories of being 300 or 600 (or 200, 400, 600 — whatever the case may be).

You really have to consider what you actually are and to me it seems that we're a continuum in a way that is not all that dissimilar from a taxonomic species. At any given point in time, we can examine the breeding population of a species and come up with a description of what that species is but over time, it gradually transitions into something else. Just as a wolf and a bear aren't the same thing to us, at some point thousands of generations back, there ancestors were members of the same species and if you go back even further, at some point all mammals were part of the same species and further back still, all chordates — all the way back to the beginning.

In that sense, you might be find yourself 1,000 years old or 5,000 years old and thinking of your past "selves" much in the way we think about our ancestors now.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Oh ... right ... I actually forgot about that.

Thanks!

a reply to: Passerby1996

The largest problem for immortality of the flesh I see other than your examples is sick, disabled or mentally challenged folks. If you omit them from immortality, you have a two tier system right away.

Don't see this plausible, in most futures.

Cheers!

originally posted by: Passerby1996
a reply to: Passerby1996

Just so everyone knows I partially messed-up the title of this thread.

It was supposed to be "Immortality: The Possible Science with Impossible Moral Implications (Part 2/2)"

I don't know how to edit the title, but I guess it really doesn't matter and hopefully you guys will think so too.

Well, I swear I was having a crazy-paranormal WTF moment because I know I've seen this title before, and when I click it says "part 1 of 1" and I'm sure I'm not crazy and I didn't fell over into another dimension so what is going on here?
Thanks for clarifying that out and returning my piece of mind lol

I suppose the way you explained it effectively negates one of the main downsides to immortality, naimly the immortals curse. If everyone else is immortal too, then theres no need to worry about loosing someone close to you.

However, as you said, this creates more problems, such as overpopulation. I think that the only way a stable immortal society could function is if they were sterile. Even in china where they used to have a 1 child policy, many people still birthed a second child, especially in rural areas. With immortality, and no one dying at all, even having 1 child would be problematic, as there is no death to balance out the gift of life.

The sterilization could be lifted when the population decreases noticeably from reasons unrelated to aging.

On an end note, are you expecting humans to continue living a volatile lifestyle with wars and whatnot, when there is literally no point to because people can't die? I would expect people to learn pretty quickly with the introduction of immortality that there is no benefit to smashing a peer to pieces when you can just outwait him.

a reply to: WhiteHat

You're welcome, friend. Thankfully, you have not entered some other dimension...

...as far as you know!

*making fake ghost noises*

a reply to: EchoOff

To the question you posed in your last paragraph: People would still die from accidents or attack from another living being, so world peace wouldn't necessarily be achieved simply by making everyone biologically immortal.

If there's something humans do best it's finding ways to kill eachother, even when it's no longer logical.

a reply to: Treespeaker

I mostly just gave the sweeping policies that would likely be needed in certain circumstances involving immortality, not the exceptions to those rules such as the disabled.

Like I said in the thread, I'm not pretending to know all the answers. I find it intriguing to look into the future, see what advancements we may make, and speculate the consequences of those advancements.

If immortality is ever a viable possibility, these issues will be brought up. I'm sure, through all the madness, the disabled will get an equal slice of the immortal pie, lest we devolve into some sort of rich vs. poor dystopia.

a reply to: Passerby1996

I think for the basics your spot on.

I personally think it would be more viable once we have learned how to auto regenerate damaged appendages, or ones damaged from birth. Then immortality would haveve less issues.

If someone tired of it there would be no issue as I see it, a system would be put in place to end them painlessly. At the time of death the new birth could be allowed....it would be just a matter of time before given the chance to create something immortal, not unlike it is now lol.


Peace

a reply to: Passerby1996
Energy is cooling.

Energy changes light and sound when it cools and forms different bodies.

Space determines that it holds different bodies...all belonging to the cooling effect yet they are different. This is because energy changes by light and sound itself.

Light and sound changes by cooling.

We currently live in an atmosphere that allows life to live....and life to age....and life to die.

We know by spiritual self evidence that we manifested from out of origin light on the other side of the atmosphere and are trapped in the organic life condition of living and then desisting.

One day the atmospheric body will change its condition as a cooling body...for radiation determines that it does cool.

The atmosphere therefore one day will no longer support organic manifestation...and life on Planet Earth will finally be released from its condition of being mortal.

Science already determines that energy is used and that it becomes another condition.

We live and use energy to stay alive....yet we die. Energy in this process therefore determines that it cannot make us immortal.

We know about being immortal only because our awareness considering the condition also advises us of the condition.

Our true form is a light being and we taught ourselves this precept. We gained life experience via manifesting light spirits that we witnessed...phenomena of our spirit and also the cause/effect of making evil spirits manifest. Therefore we already know that we are immortal...in light without organic form.

Scientists want immortality to exist in the physical domain of plasma creation, for this is the new scientific theory they propose...the gain of plasma itself. Yet this form of plasma only exists in out of space. Scientists could create nuclear fuel...for uranium or dust exists in star systems and on Earth. Earth does not have a plasma body to steal, therefore scientists considered our natural spiritual cell and thought of a consideration of stealing this life body instead.

The NWO agenda already determined that they had considered removal of human life.....DNA seemed the solution for occult scientists.

Would not Overpopulation be solved with colonization?

After at that point Generation ships would no longer be necessary, a trip that would take about 50 generations would then be able to be done by a single crew with out cryogenics.

Immortality of the whole race would get us spreading out into the wild blue beyond so fast to ease over crowding...

Of course the other solution to over crowding would be "Soylent Green" of those ready to die.

I find immortality to give more problems then solutions.

If given immortality then there should be a price. Most logical would be unable to procreate life.

Although I'm more in favor for extended lifespan, say 200-300 years which should be sufficient consider our immense drive on that path we take. A good example is how innovate we are as a human species, think about the technological speed we attain like in computer sciences and other areas.

Beside I don't think we humans are really ready for Immortality, if it happens it won't be far off to extinction. We are too greedy, selfish and we have a ability to do unspeakable atrocities. Once we get rid of those negative impulses, then we can talk about immortality.

- V -

moral is a human invention.

“Death gives meaning to our lives. It gives importance and value to time. Time would become meaningless if there were too much of it.”
― Ray Kurzweil

a reply to: Farlander

Time does not exist, and therefore you cannot create time, as implied by science as a review condition of ownership of power/energy.

Immortality is impossible, for our genetics imposes a condition of death encoded within DNA...which is the reason why we die....otherwise we would not die, for there would be no reason.

The reasoning to our immortality is given to Christ, and modern day occultists have read this documentation and believed that they could become immortal like Christ....yet Christ never lived beyond the Age of 33, and never returned as a physical being for immortality.

So would you impose a condition of thought relating to the ancient self, and their own belief by Egyptian documents relating to the Return of the King and reincarnation and immortality.....and then state the obvious....how wrong you all are.

For the King did not return, and he did not regain his mortal life.

So you would ask the human consciousness as to why it removed the organs and placed them in jars for the reincarnated body to reclaim them? And you would remind yourselves, that when you involve your mind with radiation, like the ancients did, you become a changed and mutated self.....and human beings certainly display this outcome in modern life expression, after an increase in radiation.

Science itself has to agree that its own explanations and considerations as a strange model of conscious explanation, that most human beings...natural to life do not express nor understand, could only factor that they themselves are possessed by the ancient mind radiation of the alien spirit, that manifested in ancient Giza radiation experiments.

Christ is considered to be the spiritual presence of the immortal life....yet the realization after life was attacked with stigmata...blood leeching from the skin.....a changed brain chemical reaction along with hallucinative mind changes, and speech changes, to the death itself.

This displayed to the ancient philosopher scientist that immortality never existed.

If you asked consciousness of a male as to what action he is self motivated by as a condition of psyche evaluations.....his penis. Does sperm consider itself to be the procreator condition of immortality itself...and I would ask myself as a male if this motivation of a male is the very reason why you murdered your own spiritual life?