If you could live forever, would you?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adarrow2
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the implications of potential genetic advancements that could allow humans to live significantly longer or even forever. Participants express varied opinions on the idea of immortality and the ability to revert to a younger age. Many emphasize the importance of having the option for voluntary termination, suggesting that without the ability to choose when to end life, the prospect of living forever becomes undesirable. Concerns about the emotional toll of outliving loved ones, the potential for boredom, and the fear of a lonely existence in an ever-changing world are prevalent. Some argue that living forever could lead to a deeper understanding of life and knowledge accumulation, while others express skepticism about the value of an endless life filled with suffering and loss. The conversation also touches on philosophical perspectives regarding the nature of existence, the fear of the unknown, and the psychological implications of immortality. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards a preference for extended life rather than true immortality, with many participants highlighting the importance of choice in determining one's lifespan.
adarrow2
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
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.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
adarrow2 said:
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.

I'd take the deal. Being 55 right now I wouldn't mind turning my biological clock back to about 35. I think I was at my peak at about 35 personally.

The second thing is that option for voluntary termination. I'd only want the extended life as long as I could choose to end it at any time with respect. I'd also like to have medical assistance to end it in a peaecful way should I ever decide to do that.

Without that option to respectfully end it I would decline the initial offer to extend it.
 
Yes.

It's a big world, and its constantly changing, so you can never know everything, do everything, be everything, but if you could live forever you'd constantly be fighting the good fight. Everytime you learn something, you realize how much more there is to learn, and I doubt that changes as you get older. I would not need the option to terminate voluntarily.
 
No

I turned around to my father and Stated that I had forgoten more than I would ever know. I was 13 years old.

The Idea of living forever does not appeal in the slightest as it would still be this life I lead. For me, it would be better to start again.
 
I would dig it so long as I didn't have to work too hard to maintain my living expenses...
 
Yes.

I only would do it to get an extended life though. eventually i probably would say you know what i have had my more than fair share it is time to take my bow and leave.without that option for voluntary termination NO! i don't like things with never in them and never being able to die would be a bad thing even if it took 9999999999 years for you to realize it.
 
i wouldn't live forever...think of all the turmoil you'd cause. people would think you're either god or the devil, they would get scared...people are always afraid of what they don't understand.
 
Yes... with that option (otherwise no)

YES
Well, given that option that I can choose to die whenever I like, then YES.
There are so many things in the future I would like to be alive for, so I would definitely take the deal.

Although I would live as I am now, I would prefer to genetically live at a younger age (in the teens). I'd like to look young and have a lot of energy rather than being older in the thirties or twenties.
 
yes i would want to choose to live forever even without the option to self terminate my life. I don't need reason other than too LIVE.
 
  • #10
I don't think I'd want to live forever... I mean, who would want to hang around until who knows when, attend all their loved ones' funerals, watch as the world slowly falls apart... it's a frightening thought, to live forever. wouldn't you get tired of history repeating itself with wars over the same things over and over again? and as mentioned above, people would eventually begin to suspect that you are some form of supernatural and would begin to fear you... the novel "interview with the vampire" comes to mind :blushing:
 
  • #11
I would choose a longer lifespan anyway, but more importantly I wonder how it would change the way people look at the world and each other...
Going back to college at 83 might be fairly young after awhile...
I suspect some people aren't going to want to, they've had enough of having enough after 10 years let alone 1000, but then I'll bet it would be a big evolutionary hurdle to cross, can people really learn to keep their brain young though, that's the real quesiton, without a young mind begetting a young brain a young body isn't going to make much difference, there was this guy who lived to be like 120 in asia somewhere and he took a walk everyday, do you think he ever got bored of seeing the same thing over and over, or did he not see the same thing everyday? Do you think sometimes people can will themselves to die? If so can they will themselves to live a bit longer too?
I wonder how long it will be until the populace realize how close we are and the investment money starts rolling in like a tidal wave, it's almost as absurd a dream as putting a man on the moon too.
 
  • #12
I may take a longer lifespan, and a longer youth.. but never immortality in that respect.

Maybe I'm just being my natural pessimist self, but I don't like this world I'm in...
 
  • #13
Im not sure if I want to live forever. As others have pointed out all of my loved ones will die within my infinite lifespan, thus causing more strife than anything else. What if humanity were to perish yet you still were able to live forever? That would be an awfully lonely world.

Also with the current models, the sun will inevitably extinguish itself and the universe may contract on itself. So either the immortal person would freeze (or live in a dark world alone) or be torn to shreds as the universe systematically crunches everything into atoms.
 
  • #14
There are examples of bacterial spores that are over 250,000,000 years old. You should ask them what it's like.
 
  • #15
"people would eventually begin to suspect that you are some form of supernatural and would begin to fear you" ~ 2 people said this so far
For those who said this: You would want to die over this? Is it because you think you're making other people sad or you want to kill yourself over embaracement? I don't get why this of all reasons is something you'd say against living forever.

Your loved ones would die but you would get over it. You have quite a long time. Plus you could meet new people and get very good at meeting new people. I would still be hesitant to live forever without the option of death because who knows what I'm going to learn which might make me want to die.
 
  • #16
I definitely wood. We can see alla the new tech that man invents and share our experiences
 
  • #17
adarrow2 said:
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.

Your must first distinguish betweein two kinds of PERFECTION:

1) WEAK PERFECTION

This means the ability to physically progress (both in structure and in function) to a point where you can live for a very long period of time without dieing, however, without completely eliminating all the menas by which the human beings kick the bucket or die. Perhaps, genetically as you suggested, but the fact remains that you can still die by whatever other means that have not been scientifically taken care of. So, weak human perfection never completley eliminates all the means by which we die.

2) STRONG PERFECTION

Strong perfection is simply IMMORTALITY in the strongest sense of the term, and this is the type that I advocate and very much desire in my entire philosophy. If you follow my postings in this PF, you should see it on display everywhere there. So whenever I use the term perfection in my responses to people's postings you know straight away that I am talking about immortality in the strongest sense of the word. This is simply the ability for human beings to finally survive physical destruction via scientific elimination of all the means by which human beings die (fire, heavy weights, knife and gun wounds on our frigile bodies, diseases of all kinds, poisons, WMDs, natural disasters of all kinds, such as the Asian Earthquakes few days ago, etc.)

Hence, the project of survival of the human race is now by far the most important project in the whole wide world. We may pretend to be emotionally, intllectually or physically stronger than other people, and be fearless of death, behind closed doors and in the bottom of our hearts, the fact remains that we all desire everlasting life, if not for us, at least for the luckiest future generations.

IMPORTANT: We must not be selfish and stupid about this project. Most imortantly, we must not say because our own generation now may not live to witness the dream of immortality fully scientifically realized, therefore we must act so carelessly so as to completely deny our future generations the opportinuity for this dream. We must conduct ourselves in a manner that permits this dream to be fully achieved now or later in future.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
If you mean to extend life by simply rolling back one's biological clock then sure, but I most definitely wouldn't want to live forever. Obviously the longer one's lifespan the greater the risk of cancers and disease. That's not something a proverbial biological clock can prevent. There's always the threat of war, natural disaster, or any of the myriad of ways humans can perish. If, for whatever reason one were able to get off the planet and into deep space and live there alone (and somehow happily) forever I still wouldn't do it. Current observations have the universe expanding indefinitely which means that eventually everything will cool down further until the universe is cold and barren.

I'd like to take a glimpse into the distant future, but I don't think I'd like to try living through till then. Humanity scares me at the current moment.

Besides, what's so wrong with passing away?
 
  • #19
No

My answer is a resounding NO! I think that living would begin to tire on you. Everyone you loved would be gone. While I wouldn'y mind livew for 5 or 6 centuries. I wouldn't want to live much past that. I am deeply realigious and would like to go to heaven at one point.
 
  • #20
I think that I am in the process of living forever.
 
  • #21
Dayle Record said:
I think that I am in the process of living forever.

Well done, Dayle...who in his or her right mind doesn't!
 
  • #22
No

Man i would get bored of this life after a while and I would desire to find out what's on the other side, though i have my own personal beliefs i want to see if I am right or not.
 
  • #23
I think the people choosing to live forever don't quite understant the idea of forever.
Forever is an awefull long time, when you choose to live forever, you are maiing a very long commitment. The obvious is that you'll outlive your family/friends, but then you outlive everything (eventually all life on Earth must end, the sun dies, humans must move or die, and eventually there will be no where left to move to), eventually, everything in the universe will die out, but you remain. a single person, cannot do much without the help of others (to grow/make/.. food/anything else you ever would want to use in an eternity of life). Then the universe will either collapse or expand forever, you'll get awefull hot (eventually being crushed into a singularity), or cold/dark, and there is no end, forever!
forever is scary when you look past the first hundred years, and into the long term, you need to have an escape clause, which some people said they wouldn't need to make their decision.
 
  • #24
BigStelly said:
No

Man i would get bored of this life after a while and I would desire to find out what's on the other side, though i have my own personal beliefs i want to see if I am right or not.

Ah... but the question was about living forever... not about what form your life takes... you still want to live on the other side... so you want your life to continue in some form.

Suppose the options were living forever here or a finite life with annihilation when the life here ends... Then what would you choose?
 
  • #25
It was said in the original post, that you could die through terminal illnesses, accidents, and even voluntary termination. Thus, it is still a mortal life - only it can be extended endlessly.

I find it funny that people are so afraid of: "what might happen - the fear of the unknown", or "the pain", or "they might think I'm the devil and make wars over me". All, and I might as well just say it - stupid reasons not to take an amazing deal. This is life, a one time deal. It is not some kind of game, that you play for 77 years before you go back to some playpen in heaven. Live it if you can, for 300 or 3000 years or even until the universe starts to cave in on itself. In my opinion, anyone who says no to such a "no cost" opportunity, is severely misunderstanding or downplaying the importance of life. It is not like you have to sacrifice your firstborn or something, and you do not decay in intellect either. This is strictly a choice of survival or death.
 
  • #26
If I could live forever, I'd build a spaceship, pack it with essential supplies and equipment to stay alive forever in the universe, and head towards the unknown in hopes of discovering other civilizations
 
  • #27
cronxeh said:
If I could live forever, I'd build a spaceship, pack it with essential supplies and equipment to stay alive forever in the universe, and head towards the unknown in hopes of discovering other civilizations

Now you are talking...that's more like it! It was more that well overdue that someone said something concrete. Uptimum overdrive...and there is no looking back. Keep everything on schedule and on course!
 
  • #28
learningphysics said:
Ah... but the question was about living forever... not about what form your life takes... you still want to live on the other side... so you want your life to continue in some form.

Suppose the options were living forever here or a finite life with annihilation when the life here ends... Then what would you choose?



Yeah OK i see what you are saying on this one, with those conditions set( and only with those conditions) I would not mind living forever quite so much. But it would still get boring, however if its that or cold oblivion id pick immortality.
 
  • #29
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.
 
  • #30
Boredom is a psychological condition. There's no reason to think it can't be eliminated or at least controlled in the future.
 
  • #31
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 woudl 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.
 
  • #32
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.
 
  • #33
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Do you believe that philosophical nihilists and idealists make up the majority of suicides?
 
  • #35
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".
 
  • #36
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.
 
  • #37
Bartholomew said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
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.
 
  • #39
It whould be a privilege to have everlasting live, considering all of those who died before us.
 
  • #40
Bartholomew said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
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.
 
  • #42
Bartholomew said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
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.
 
  • #44
Bartholomew said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
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.
 
  • #46
selfAdjoint said:
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!
 
  • #47
To Philocrat:
Philocrat said:
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:
Bartholomew said:
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.

Bartholomew said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
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
 
  • #49
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.
 
  • #50
Telos said:
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.
 
Back
Top