If you could live forever, would you?

[K.J.Healey]

Are we assuming that only WE are allwoed to live forever (not family and friends and others)?
If so, then I believe it would be completely selfish to not accept immortality. The sheer amount of time you would have available would allow you to amalgamate so much information, you would be able to be an expert in every field. And with this knowledge and assuming you don't lose all creativity, you could be a leading source of new discovery to help the human race. You would have such a complete understanding of everything, that your insight would be priceless.

I imagine it might get boring or repetitive, but that's a small price for the value you would be to everyone else.

 

[Bartholomew]

Of course, how many people would kill themselves if they knew they could live forever if they didn't kill themselves? Not many, I think.

 

[GeD]

Not necessarily. For some (like nihilists), if they believed that there is no meaning to life (or cannot be had), then it is better to simply die (or offer no resistance to death).

Also, for idealists, a life full of sufferings will be too much, and would rather end life than to feel anymore pain.

 

[Bartholomew]

Do you believe that philosophical nihilists and idealists make up the majority of suicides?

 

[GeD]

I can see a big percentage of the people who commit suicide as having nihilist and idealist tendencies (and suiciding because of it), but not necessarily that they're "philosophical nihilists".

 

[Bartholomew]

If they are not philosophical nihilists or idealists, they wouldn't throw away, on principle, a possibly vast lifetime. Any mere tendencies towards idealism or nihilism would not compare to the value of such a long potential life. It would take either a serious principle or a stupid person to suicide in the face of near immortality.

 

[GeD]

If they are not philosophical nihilists or idealists, they wouldn't throw away, on principle, a possibly vast lifetime. Any mere tendencies towards idealism or nihilism would not compare to the value of such a long potential life. It would take either a serious principle or a stupid person to suicide in the face of near immortality.

That IS the point. Nihilist tendencies make that view of a long potential life as valueless and worthless (they no longer view aspects of life as having any worth or potential). Hence, if they do not value enough aspects of life in the first place, then "the value of such a long potential life" is hogwash to them.

As for idealists, they may suicide a long, potential life, because they fear and hate suffering as something to be completely avoided - usually if there is not enough respite from joyful moments.

 

[Bartholomew]

To make decisions like that would require some serious principles. To decide an entire near-immortal lifetime is not worth living because it is valueless is a very high-pressure decision. No one would come to that definite conclusion unless they had unshakable faith in nihilism; they would have to be philosophical nihilists. Mere nihiliistic tendencies do not fit the bill.

 

[Victor Frankenstein]

It whould be a privilege to have everlasting live, considering all of those who died before us.

 

[GeD]

To make decisions like that would require some serious principles. To decide an entire near-immortal lifetime is not worth living because it is valueless is a very high-pressure decision. No one would come to that definite conclusion unless they had unshakable faith in nihilism; they would have to be philosophical nihilists. Mere nihiliistic tendencies do not fit the bill.

That would be true if everyone else were as thorough in their decision making. Unfortunately, those with just tendences are too often swept up by the emotions associated with suffering, and will commit suicide while under their duress.

 

[Bartholomew]

Right, it's an emotional decision, and that's my point: the emotional momentum of a potentially vast lifetime is going to overwhelm most suicidal impulses. There is an _awful_ lot of philosophy and religion about the fact of human mortality; psychologically it carries a _lot_ of weight.

 

[GeD]

Right, it's an emotional decision, and that's my point: the emotional momentum of a potentially vast lifetime is going to overwhelm most suicidal impulses. There is an _awful_ lot of philosophy and religion about the fact of human mortality; psychologically it carries a _lot_ of weight.

I agree emotions play a big part, but it's not a strictly emotional decision. I was stating that some suicidal persons decide according to their emotions because they have such nihilistic/idealistic tendencies. I don't see suicide happening simply because of great emotional distress. If it were just emotions, the instinct for survival or power would still overcome the pain from emotions (among other things). I see it more likely that the mixture of nihilistic tendencies (no actions and valueless life), idealistic tendencies (contentment and stagnation) tendencies and severe emotional pain casts men to commit suicide.

 

[Bartholomew]

The emotional side can be mostly tossed away in the face of near-immortality. As to the philosophical side, you would have to be very, very sure of yourself. Mere tendencies would not be sufficient.

Have you ever been suicidal? Personally, I believe it is an emotional decision. When failed businessmen commit suicide they are not acting on philosophical grounds; they are acting out of despair from loss of status and what they have built up. If they had potentially unending lives, it would be no big deal; they'd just spend another eyeblink of a 20 year stretch and regain what they had lost, with eternity still stretched out before them.

 

[GeD]

The emotional side can be mostly tossed away in the face of near-immortality. As to the philosophical side, you would have to be very, very sure of yourself. Mere tendencies would not be sufficient.

Have you ever been suicidal? Personally, I believe it is an emotional decision. When failed businessmen commit suicide they are not acting on philosophical grounds; they are acting out of despair from loss of status and what they have built up. If they had potentially unending lives, it would be no big deal; they'd just spend another eyeblink of a 20 year stretch and regain what they had lost, with eternity still stretched out before them.

I agree, emotions could be tossed away easily because you had an unending life. And indeed, many reasons for hating failure would be forgotten simply because we had tons of time to make up for it. However, there is still the notion that everyone must yield to: life involves joy/success AND suffering/defeat. I admit, I have thought of and thought about suicide - but how do I know that my thoughts are the same as anyone else? From that experience, I definitely wouldn't conclude that everyone who was suicidal must be thinking only of the fact that they have no time to make up for failures. Suicidal tendencies are not only there because there's no time to make up for it. I found that experiencing or knowing the inevitability of defeat or suffering itself can be the problem.

However, I am commending you for embracing the idea that suffering is simply a part of life, not something to be hated, feared and avoided - but others may not share the same belief. Why? Because they have nihilistic or idealistic tendencies (I'll agree that such tendencies cannot be weak, since they must at least have some effect on someone). If suffering exists in this limited life, suffering will continue to exist in an unending life. Those with such tendencies believe that suffering is either a "bad" thing, or simply something that they don't want to experience any longer. I agree, older people are more likely to suicide, and do have more reasons for suicide - no time to make up for their suffering, weaknesses or defeats, less freedoms, etc. But if suicides were only a matter of having no time to make up for defeats, teens and younger adults (ones who have time to rebuild their lives) would rarely ever be committing suicide - however, many young people still do.
http://www.mentalhealthscreening.org/infofaq/suicide.htm

Suicide is a complete inversion of our instinctive value for life and experience, but sometimes the severe hatred for suffering is enough to bring some people to suicide. They do not need to be complete philosophical nihilists to do that, they just need to BELIEVE strongly enough about certain reasons and the accompanying emotions that foster suicide. Remember that not all people are so 'rational' about their suicide that they would always consider all the pros and cons. Even if they have an unending life, these suicides would still happen (albeit, to a lesser extent).

Think about it like this, of all the religious people in the world, most are not very strong believers. Some have stronger beliefs, but the majority do not even have close to what they have, but they still act according to religion. Suicide is the same deal. They do not need to have an encompassing, and truly nihilistic/idealistic thinking before they will kill themselves. They only need to convince themselves that their reasons (could be embarassment, fear of pain/consequence, weariness of struggle) and the accompanying emotions are stronger than the will to live.

In fact, a true nihilist would not even bother to try and suicide. He does not value death more life, suffering is the same as pleasure. To him, both are the same, worthless, valueless, meaningless action or event.

 

[Bartholomew]

Practicing religion while not strongly believing in it is in a different category from suiciding and not having strong philosophical reasons for it. Combine the two--how many religious suicide bombers do you think there are who don't believe in their religion all that strongly?

I agree that the young would be less affected by potential immortality than the old, but any suicidal teen is going to have one more reason not do it. Currently they can rationalize, "well, I'm going to die anyway, my choice or not," but if they couldn't say that so certainly, it would give them pause. They may get caught up in relatively small struggles that they blow out of proportion, but when you are immortal you have to blow something out of proportion to a pretty great degree before you can dismiss what suicide would be a sacrifice of.

 

[Philocrat]

The thing is, suppose you have been given immortality. So on any given day, say after a google (10^{100}) years, you find yourself terribly bored. DO you kill yourself? I think some people do that after only 30 years! So it's an individual quirk, and not a philosophical question at all.

And it would be very strange indeed that after being made fully structurally and functionally perfect BOREDOM still persisted! Would Boredom not have everporated with all other natural imperfections that previously existed before you were subsequently rendered completely immortal or perfect? Why would anyone want to die after you have been made immortal in the strictest sense of the word?

----------------
THINK NATURE...STAY GREEN! ABOVE ALL, NEVER HARM OR DESTROY THAT WHICH YOU CANNOT CREATE! MAY THE 'BOOK OF NATURE' SERVE YOU WELL AND BRING YOU ALL THAT IS GOOD!

 

[GeD]

To Philocrat:

And it would be very strange indeed that after being made fully structurally and functionally perfect BOREDOM still persisted! Would Boredom not have everporated with all other natural imperfections that previously existed before you were subsequently rendered completely immortal or perfect? Why would anyone want to die after you have been made immortal in the strictest sense of the word?

Because they could be frustrated by defeats, suffering, or lack of power.

Also, the original question stated that the person would only be able to extend its life and thus could never die through old age, but he's not immune to dangers and accidents, and is thus not immortal.

To Bartholomew:

Practicing religion while not strongly believing in it is in a different category from suiciding and not having strong philosophical reasons for it. Combine the two--how many religious suicide bombers do you think there are who don't believe in their religion all that strongly?

Then tell me, how many suicide bombers are philosophical nihilists? You are also talking about fanatics who suicide FOR their religion. Even the most hardcore nihilists would not suicide FOR nihilism. In religion, this necessity for suicide can be indoctrinated, and that's why you get religious suicide bombers. Why is this? Because in religion, suicide could be seen as necessary to fulfill the requirements of their religion. However, even though some people believe that suicide is implied in nihilism, nihilists never think that one is forced to suicide because of the nihilistic philosophy.

I agree that the young would be less affected by potential immortality than the old, but any suicidal teen is going to have one more reason not do it. Currently they can rationalize, "well, I'm going to die anyway, my choice or not," but if they couldn't say that so certainly, it would give them pause. They may get caught up in relatively small struggles that they blow out of proportion, but when you are immortal you have to blow something out of proportion to a pretty great degree before you can dismiss what suicide would be a sacrifice of.

Yea, that's the whole problem of suicide. It's a complete inversion of the value for life, and it's blown out of proportion. The problem of not having the time to make up for losses is not necessary for suicide to occur. That's why I said that when someone believes strongly enough in certain reasons to do things, that is enough to make them commit suicide. They never needed to be philosophical nihilists. Just enough of a tendency to find suicide as a worthy option. Full philosophical nihilists, as I said before, would see suicide (as well as everything else) as neither greater or less worth doing than living. And thus, suicide for philosophical nihilists is never necessary, only a choice.

 

[ken]

Hi

While longer life, even imortality is attractive (after all I don't want to die and I would like to experience and see many things in the world), I know that death is a release from this corrupt world filled with pain, suffering and separation from God.

Since the fall of man, death is the blessing that this fallen state should not be endured forever.


Ken

 

[Telos]

I don't know how anyone can participate in this discussion.

If we implement radical life extension, then life will by definition be radically different. We have no justifiable context to proceed with this discussion.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

I don't know how anyone can participate in this discussion.

If we implement radical life extension, then life will by definition be radically different. We have no justifiable context to proceed with this discussion.

I coincide, eternity is such a random and abstract invention that it can't even be though of. Eternity: never end, never begin, can you imagen that? NO.

 

[lawtonfogle]

With the recent advancements in genetics, it may be possible in the not too distant future to double, triple or even live forever. The question I have for you is, if you would live forever, as you are now would you? Why or why not?

What about if you could turn back the hands of time genetically to a younger or ahead to an older age and remain biologically in tact at that age forever would you? Why or why not?

NOTE: In this hypothetical situation, you can still die by accidental death, by a terminal illnesses or voluntarily terminate your life.

1. You can not live forever, unless you are a perfect being and create no enthropy, for that means you need no order to survive, and when the universe is pure enthropy, you will still not die. Genetics are no where near and probally will never be able to do that.

2. If i could live forever, would I? No, i might live for extra time, but not forever, only if everyone lives forever will there be no death, and then there will be extreme over population. If there is death, then sooner or later those you love, maybe i should put care for, will all pass away . After that, what is there to live for.

3. If i could turn back the clock, would i? I am not old enough to think of my self as old, but if (i might die before I am old) i do get old would i. Yes to some extent. I would not want to be in a hospital bed with a pacemaker and feeding tube, i rather be 20-30.

4. Would i remain young forever if i could? read post 2 and then add 3 to it for an answer.

 

[GeD]

I don't know how anyone can participate in this discussion.

If we implement radical life extension, then life will by definition be radically different. We have no justifiable context to proceed with this discussion.

That's a misunderstanding of life! It has constantly changed DRAMATICALLY* especially over our last two thousand years. No other species has had its life expectancy grow double in less than a thousand years, as well as many other major life changes. To say that the discussion of changing life dramatically must have justifiable context first is just plain ignorance of history and fear of the unknown aspects of human existence.



We can't begin to imagine eternity? Then what are you talking about if you can't even grasp it? Just because we cannot prove eternity, does not mean we do not comprehend it.

 

[Telos]

That's a misunderstanding of life! It has constantly changed DRAMATICALLY* especially over our last two thousand years. No other species has had its life expectancy grow double in less than a thousand years, as well as many other major life changes. To say that the discussion of changing life dramatically must have justifiable context first is just plain ignorance of history and fear of the unknown aspects of human existence.

This claim that we've "doubled our life expectancy" is really getting out of hand.

ca. 250 years ago, Isaac Newton lived to be 84.
ca. 400 years ago, Galileo lived to be 78.
ca. 800 years ago, Albertus Magnus lived to be 87.
ca. 1000 years ago, Saint Anselm lived to be 76.
ca. 1300 years ago, Saint Adamnan lived to be 79.
ca. 1500 years ago, Uthman ibn Affan lived to be 82.
ca. 2000 years ago, Tiberius lived to be 79.
ca. 2300 years ago, Euclid lived to be 90.
ca. 2500 years ago, Plato lived to be 74.
ca. 3300 years ago, Ramses II lived to be 90.
ca. 5000 years ago, Menes reigned Egypt for 62 years. Although his exact age is unknown, he probably lived much longer than he reigned. [Edit: and he was killed by a hippopotamus.]

The rising lines of life expectancy are statistical lies. By leading a privileged and protected life, while having plentiful access to food and leisure, people throughout all of recorded history have lived to the ages they do now.

And the above are just samples from western civilization.

The rising average life expectancy occurs because more of us live like nobles, kings, and pharaohs.

 

[GeD]

This claim that we've "doubled our life expectancy" is really getting out of hand.

ca. 250 years ago, Isaac Newton lived to be 84.
ca. 400 years ago, Galileo lived to be 78.
ca. 800 years ago, Albertus Magnus lived to be 87.
ca. 1000 years ago, Saint Anselm lived to be 76.
ca. 1300 years ago, Saint Adamnan lived to be 79.
ca. 1500 years ago, Uthman ibn Affan lived to be 82.
ca. 2000 years ago, Tiberius lived to be 79.
ca. 2300 years ago, Euclid lived to be 90.
ca. 2500 years ago, Plato lived to be 74.
ca. 3300 years ago, Ramses II lived to be 90.
ca. 5000 years ago, Menes reigned Egypt for 62 years. Although his exact age is unknown, he probably lived much longer than he reigned. [Edit: and he was killed by a hippopotamus.]

The rising lines of life expectancy are statistical lies. By leading a privileged and protected life, while having plentiful access to food and leisure, people throughout all of recorded history have lived to the ages they do now.

And the above are just samples from western civilization.

The rising average life expectancy occurs because more of us live like nobles, kings, and pharaohs.

Stating the lives of a few rare occurrences doesn't impress anyone...we're not really interested in a few rare occurrences after all.
Since nowadays we also have 120+ year old people, your argument that there used to be 90 year olds just goes to show that the maximum life expectancy has increased by about 33%.
The average, however, is the more interesting part - it has clearly shown that we are living longer. The fact that more people are living like nobles and kings is already proof that human life has dramatically changed over the course of history, because of the advent of new technology and the changes in social dynamics. What else will the future bring? What would lead us to think that this is the absolute end of rising life expectancies (maximum or average)?

Thus, the statement remains:
"To say that the discussion of changing life dramatically must have justifiable context first is just plain ignorance of history and fear of the unknown [thus uncharted] aspects of human existence."

 

[Telos]

GeD, you just revealed yourself as the object of your own criticism. Brushing aside my examples just because they weren't numerous shows that you are deliberately ignorant of history. You assume that these types of people are "rare," but in fact they shared a common lifestyle - that of nobility. Certainly the nobles were not as populous as the underclass, but the peasants often died in mandatory military service or malnutrition. It's really sad to see that you are interested in this, while claiming that you are.

Since nowadays we also have 120+ year old people, your argument that there used to be 90 year olds just goes to show that the maximum life expectancy has increased by about 33%.

90 years old was not the maximum life expectancy. I was only illustrating numerous individuals throughout history who, because of their nobility, lived to about the age people do now. Even if 90 was the maximum life expectancy, it would still be only 33%, not double, which I successfully exposed as misleading.

Thus, the statement remains:...

Your statement must be directed at someone else, because I never made the claim you mention. The topic specifically draws from life extension, not the general "changing of life dramatically." It's clear that you're not putting much thought into this, and your making an incredible amount of assumptions from my posts, which from my perspective is actually careless and rude. But most importantly it makes discussion with you impractical. You're now on my ignore list. No offense.

 

[GeD]

GeD, you just revealed yourself as the object of your own criticism. Brushing aside my examples just because they weren't numerous shows that you are deliberately ignorant of history.

How do I brush history aside when I use it to compare to what is now prevalent? The point is to show how we have increased life expectancy throughout history, not that things are the same.

90 years old was not the maximum life expectancy. I was just illustrating numerous individuals throughout history who, because of their nobility, lived to about the age people do now. Even if 90 was the maximum life expectancy, it would still be only 33%, not double, which I successfully exposed as misleading.

This point is flawed! It was easy to understand that double the average life expectancy is what we should be discussing - not the dozen or so exceptions. If you are looking at the past to search for your life expectancy, do you try to see the maximum age limits are? You would be more willing to look at the AVERAGE life expectancy of the people in your environment.

Your statement must be directed at someone else, because I never made the claim you mention. The topic specifically draws from life extension, not the general "changing of life dramatically." It's clear that you're not putting much thought into this, and your making an incredible amount of assumptions from my posts, making discussion with you impractical.

It's clear that you either don't even know what you're writing, or you just want to ignore anyone who counters you. Here is your statement on the life extension and dramatic change of life stuff:

If we implement radical life extension, then life will by definition be radically different. We have no justifiable context to proceed with this discussion.

Thus you are stating that if we extend life dramatically, the definition of life will be different. And then you go on to state that because of that, there is no justification to proceed with this discussion - but how is this the case?. I argue that there is always justification for the discussion of life extension, even if it causes a dramatic change of our definition of life. This is the case because life has been and continues to dramatically change over time (if we look at history), yet we are not unjustified when we try to discuss or extend our life span.

You're now on my ignore list. No offense.

Good to see that you've put me on your ignore list - you must be the only one left that isn't on there. No offense.

 

[Huckleberry]

While I might be tempted to add on a few healthy years near the end of my life I would not want to live forever. Evolution relies on death to make room for new life.

I notice that the older I get the faster time seems to pass. (I'm not talking relativity theory here, just personal perspective) As a child summer vacation used to seem like a long time. Now a season passes by so quickly. A friend of mine had a child with his wife two years ago. I remember the day that he called me and told me that she was pregnant like it was yesterday. Every year that I age is a significantly smaller proportion of my total life experience.

If I were to live forever then I would have so many memories that I wouldn't know how to deal with it all. Generation after generation would pass by me and I would feel so left out. There would be no family, no friends that would last. One day they would be children and in retrospect it would seem a short time before they would be dead. By removing myself from the natural evolution of the species I would selfishly cheat myself out of any long term enjoyment. Death is a part of what makes life so valuable.