Would you live forever?
I’m still on the topic of wayout theories. This time, it’s an article by Wired on immortality, specifically the claims by a famous inventor Ray Kurzweil that humans will be immortal in 20 years through the use of nanotechnology, genetic engineering and a strict health regime. Already, every day he “ingests 250 supplements, eight to 10 glasses of alkaline water and 10 cups of green tea. He also periodically tracks 40 to 50 fitness indicators.” All this, to keep him alive long enough to reach the next technological revolution. He’s not a biologist or anything, so it’s all just opinion, and some people think he’s a quack. But, even if not in 20 years, I could easily believe that technology will advance our lifespans, if not to the point of immortality.
But is this something we want to do? Kurz says “Death is a tragedy, a process of suffering that rids the world of its most tested, experienced members - people whose contributions to science and the arts could only multiply with agelessness.” But if your boss will never retire, what chance to you have of promotion to the top job? What would happen to the stock market? The oldest and richest would never pass on their money and assets, Bill Gates will always, for better or worse, rule Microsoft, and do you want the same politicians running year after year? On the one hand, with all that time we may make huge leaps in technology, art, music. But on the other, new talent might have trouble fitting into an already crowded market - would innovation be stifled?
And none of this takes into account the huge strain an ever increasing population would put on our planet. Colonisation of other worlds would have to become a reality very quickly, or extreme birth control would be needed, with just enough to balance accidental deaths. And who decides who gets to have children?
As the article says,
Immortality would leave little standing in current society, in which the inevitability of death is foundational to everything from religion to retirement planning. The planet’s natural resources would be greatly stressed, and the social order shaken.
So, I leave you with two Questions of Scruples - feel free to comment with your answer and thoughts! First, by a completely random accident, tomorrow you discover a drug that would render a person immortal, never to age, never to get sick. It would be extremely cheap and easy to mass produce. You think it highly unlikely that anyone would stumble across this drug again. Do you distribute the drug, or do you pretend it never happened? Or something else?
Second, a genie appears to you tomorrow and offers you immortality, never to age (you can choose what age you want to remain at), never to get sick or hurt, and unable to die, even if you wanted to. You are the only person to be offered this deal. Would you accept? What if it was for only 1000 years? 200 years? What if you could choose when you wanted to die?
Technology is always advancing, and no matter how much like science fiction something might sound, you never know what’s around the corner…
Dave Barry Says:
If it were just me, I’d choose to live forever, or 1000 or 200 years. Any extension will do. 
Certainly if I stumbled across the immortality drug I’d release it. There would be too many deaths on my conscience otherwise.
Then it’s up to society to decide how to regulate everything…
Concerning your point about the same people being in power and such. People get tired of politicians (especially in this country). Very few pop musicians transcend generations. Young people want changes, and innovation won’t be stifled.
The over-population problem is a far bigger concern. I think that the economics of the problem would lead “quickly” to moon and Mars colonisation, and then any further problems are deferred by a few centuries.
Google Says:
- the same technological progress that leads to immortality, would, given enough time, lead to ‘uploading’ and artificial intelligence - technologies that would render obsolete many of these objections vis a vis ‘idea generation’ or ‘plundering of natural resources’ …
Interesting stuff. One of the social consequences of a society where death by old age is impossible is to bubble-wrap everything so you don’t die by more… surprising ways. But overpopulation will probably be the bigger problem.
I was talking to a friend who does cancer research and I asked him about a theoretical mechanism to live forever. It turns out that the protein involved in cell regeneration is the same problematic one that help cancer spread. And you’ll always run into mutant genes, so living forever gives them a super-big chance to persist.
Questions of Scruples:
1. I would rather throw it away. Opening that Pandora’s box isn’t worth it.
2. Having no option to die would be rough. Drawing from a bunch of philosophies, you could argue that an endless life would be meaningless/valueless. A millenium is a rather long time and you’d suffer a lot of friends and family dying. 200 years I might go for because that’s around my tradeoff for the extra experiences versus sadness of impermanence. Dying when you choose to might be my preferred choice. After 100 years I may have a different opinion on things