• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Immortality is stupid

immortality value of life life

  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#1 rezin

  • Guest
  • 34 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Germany

Posted 09 December 2014 - 02:32 PM


I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings here, with the headline I just wanted to catch your attention.

 

But still, I think immortality is not realizable nor desirable. The value of everything is determined by its scarcity, that is why I think even the possibility of immortality would lead us to a life more unproductive and less satisfying than ever. Why would anyone care to do a certain research, task or work if he has forever to complete it? Why would anyone bother to enjoy his life now if there are uncountable years to come in which one could finally realize his dreams?

Supplying too much of anything depletes its value. This holds true for money and this holds true for life.


  • Disagree x 3
  • Good Point x 1

#2 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 09 December 2014 - 03:51 PM

The immortality is realizable, my friend. It is only a question of time. We have several more diseases to beat and some more transplantation to develope, and that's that. In some point in the future, every one will be immortal. The immortality will not lead us to a life more unproductive and less satisfying, the opposite - you will know, that being immortal means, that with working, you will make all your dream come true. You will get inspired, and will become much more productive. For example, you will know, that you will pay out your debts, will save enough money for own house, etc. one by one all your dreams will come true, because all of them are a factor of time. To do a research is a part of the lust for science, and the lust for science is build up in our genes. Human kind will never reduce the care to do researches.


  • like x 1
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#3 Florin

  • Guest
  • 251 posts
  • 14
  • Location:United States

Posted 09 December 2014 - 07:26 PM

Have you stopped eating your favorite flavor of ice cream just because you have a virtually infinite supply of it? Will you ever put off eating it forever just because you can?


Edited by Florin Clapa, 09 December 2014 - 07:29 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,446 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 09 December 2014 - 07:34 PM

Human lives have already been extended over the last century...little effect on productivity. Quality of life has improved. I am unsure why extending life even more would have such a dramatic negative effect. Why are 10 more years of life desirable, but not 100 or 1,000?



#5 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 09 December 2014 - 08:07 PM

I like Mind and think he is well thought out.  However the actual extension of human lifespan has yet to be proven.  What is extended is the mid range of life.



#6 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,446 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 09 December 2014 - 08:16 PM

I like Mind and think he is well thought out.  However the actual extension of human lifespan has yet to be proven.  What is extended is the mid range of life.

 

Can't find the reference right now (go figure), but life expectancy at the end of life has increased something like 7 to 9 years over the last century. Here is a study about the reasons for late life increases in life expectancy: http://www.thelancet...0569-9/fulltext



#7 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 09 December 2014 - 10:39 PM

It appears that middle age life expectancy is increasing but what about the upper limit which i have followed for several years.  They seem to die off at about the same rate.  Upper age and health seem to be about the same.  If you are middle age 60-90 health seems to be better.  Middle age diseases seem to be getting solved but very old age seems to be about the same.  :(



#8 gatornoot

  • Guest
  • 26 posts
  • 2
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 10 December 2014 - 02:57 AM

I don't see why it matters. Your current instance will end sooner or later. Then it's time to switch to a new instance. Of course, you won't carry any memories with you. That resides in the hardware that expired. In fact, you'll have no idea what's going on, and may take some time before you regain self-awareness.

 

Use the time you have to improve all other instances you come in contact with.



#9 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 10 December 2014 - 06:45 AM

It appears that middle age life expectancy is increasing but what about the upper limit which i have followed for several years.  They seem to die off at about the same rate.  Upper age and health seem to be about the same.  If you are middle age 60-90 health seems to be better.  Middle age diseases seem to be getting solved but very old age seems to be about the same.  :(

 

It is your time to give proves now. The french Clement lived 120 years. Prove, that the such "upper limit" existed always.



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#10 rezin

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 34 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 December 2014 - 07:38 AM

Human lives have already been extended over the last century...little effect on productivity. Quality of life has improved. I am unsure why extending life even more would have such a dramatic negative effect. Why are 10 more years of life desirable, but not 100 or 1,000?

 

Mathematically there's a big difference between 'infinite' and 10, 100 or even 1,000 years. My take on the whole story is that if we are able to severely prolong our lifespans all of us would kill ourselves at a certain point. Or we would rather kill each other due to overpopulation. When there's no one dying anymore there won't be too many newborn anymore (unless we find an earthlike planet in our neighbourhood very soon, mars won't be enough). Death will always be there, no matter whether it is caused by aging, voluntary or forced.

 

 

 

Have you stopped eating your favorite flavor of ice cream just because you have a virtually infinite supply of it? Will you ever put off eating it forever just because you can?

 

Yes, I've actually overeaten B&J PBcups.



#11 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 10 December 2014 - 08:34 AM

Really, mathematically there's a big difference between 'infinite' and 10, 100 or even 1000 years.

 

Excluding this concept, your takes on the whole story are not correct. The reality is absolutely the opposite. The people, who would kill themselves are either psychos, or those, who suffer from untreatable diseases, e.g. all of the people, who would kill themselvs are ill. Removing all diseases will eliminate the desire to kill yourself.

 

The overpopulation happens in the countries and the regions with the LOWEST!!!! life expectancy, such as Africa. Opposite, the countries with big life expectancy, such as Japan for example have the opposite problem - depopulation. The entire overpopulation problem is a problem of UNCONTROLLED BIRTH RATE, not a problem of life length. Plus, overpopulation is happening today, in case you haven't noticed. And as you can see no one is killing out the overpopulating fractions.


  • dislike x 1

#12 rezin

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 34 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 December 2014 - 09:30 AM

Really, mathematically there's a big difference between 'infinite' and 10, 100 or even 1000 years.

 

Excluding this concept, your takes on the whole story are not correct. The reality is absolutely the opposite. The people, who would kill themselves are either psychos, or those, who suffer from untreatable diseases, e.g. all of the people, who would kill themselvs are ill. Removing all diseases will eliminate the desire to kill yourself.

 

The overpopulation happens in the countries and the regions with the LOWEST!!!! life expectancy, such as Africa. Opposite, the countries with big life expectancy, such as Japan for example have the opposite problem - depopulation. The entire overpopulation problem is a problem of UNCONTROLLED BIRTH RATE, not a problem of life length. Plus, overpopulation is happening today, in case you haven't noticed. And as you can see no one is killing out the overpopulating fractions.

 

You're absolutely right, overpopulation is happening already, but what I tried to mention was that if a society reaches a point of immortality there will be a huge drop in newborns n->0 thus a certain generation will live forever, without children. The effects of this can't be estimated but I think they would not be positive.

 

I actually don't think that every suicidal person is ill. Maybe I read too much of 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' but I think some people, in the future, with very long lifespans, will know when their 'great' time is over and settle for death voluntarily. Maybe I'm ill myself, in your sense ;)

 

JUST TO NOTE:

I don't claim that any of my assumptions is true, they're my personal thoughts on this topic, young and still evolving. I just wanted to kick of a nice controversial thread. 


Edited by rezin, 10 December 2014 - 09:31 AM.


#13 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 10 December 2014 - 10:54 AM

I don't actually believe, that some one, who don't want to die as general, will one day decide just like that to kill himself (or herself). Even so, in this case, new child may come to their place. All they need to do is the future suicidals to freeze some egg cells and sperm. After lets say 100 years, they will not need even that - the egg cells and spermatozoides will be produced routinely from usual cells, or the suicidals simply can be clonned. These technologies are under development already. Egg cells and sperm is routinely frozen in many places in many countries - in all of the fertilisation clinics for example.

 

What exactly bothers you with the immortal society with drop in newborns n->0



#14 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 10 December 2014 - 11:07 AM

I don't see why it matters. Your current instance will end sooner or later. Then it's time to switch to a new instance. Of course, you won't carry any memories with you. That resides in the hardware that expired. In fact, you'll have no idea what's going on, and may take some time before you regain self-awareness.

 

Use the time you have to improve all other instances you come in contact with.

 

It doesn't matter, if other instances exist at all.

 

How about if it turns out, that no other instances exist, and when you die, you just decompose, and that's that? For example if it turns out, that all of the religions have been made by psycos, frauds, and people with temporary delusions?



#15 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 10 December 2014 - 12:36 PM

The same old, boring objections to immortalism that are refuted everywhere.

 

Immortalism or life extension movement don't aim to make people immortal. That can't be done. Advances in medicine can't prevent meteorites from falling, earthquakes from occurring or cars from crashing. The aim of these movements is to eliminate aging, and thus age-related deaths, but NOT all deaths.

 

Overpopulation is caused by not controlling natality, not by life extension. Uncontrolled birth rate increases population exponentially, immortality would only increase it linearly. Overpopulation is a real problem that must be adressed, but it's mostly unrelated to life extension. The real problem is birth control. Once you have birth control, life extension advances are irrelevant to the overpopulation issue.

 

Your assumption that immortality irremediably produces suicide is not founded in any empirical evidence. There is no correlation between life expentacy and suicide rate by country or any historical increase of world suicide rate.


  • Good Point x 2
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#16 gatornoot

  • Guest
  • 26 posts
  • 2
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 10 December 2014 - 02:49 PM


I don't see why it matters. Your current instance will end sooner or later. Then it's time to switch to a new instance. Of course, you won't carry any memories with you. That resides in the hardware that expired. In fact, you'll have no idea what's going on, and may take some time before you regain self-awareness.

Use the time you have to improve all other instances you come in contact with.


It doesn't matter, if other instances exist at all.

How about if it turns out, that no other instances exist, and when you die, you just decompose, and that's that? For example if it turns out, that all of the religions have been made by psycos, frauds, and people with temporary delusions?

I'm fairly convinced that you are a another parallel instanstance of consciousness. I guess I could be wrong and be the only individual with consciousness in the universe, but somehow I doubt that. Even if that were true, I'd only re-live my life on an infinite loop since you can't experience nothingness.

I currently believe you essentially live the lives of everyone (past present and future) on an infinite loop. Of course, you can only be conscious of one instance at a time due to biological and physical constraints, but we're all parallel instances of the same entity.

#17 Florin

  • Guest
  • 251 posts
  • 14
  • Location:United States

Posted 10 December 2014 - 06:28 PM

Have you stopped eating your favorite flavor of ice cream just because you have a virtually infinite supply of it? Will you ever put off eating it forever just because you can?

 

Yes, I've actually overeaten B&J PBcups.

 

So you're never gonna eat B&J PBcups ever again?


Edited by Florin Clapa, 10 December 2014 - 06:29 PM.


#18 Marios Kyriazis

  • Guest
  • 466 posts
  • 255
  • Location:London UK

Posted 10 December 2014 - 07:10 PM

A great drawback in the life extension  movement is people talking about 'immortality' or living forever, when one really means 'abolishing aging'. The two concepts are not interchangeable, and using the wrong terminology merely confuses people. If we manage, somehow, to eliminate aging as a cause of death people will still die from any other cause. Even the generally legitimate term 'biological immortality' (meaning the absence of mortality as a function of age) is frowned upon by many who are concerned about the immortalist connotations. So, yes, immortality is stupid, but an indefinite (not infinite) lifespan is a real possibility.



#19 gatornoot

  • Guest
  • 26 posts
  • 2
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 10 December 2014 - 07:14 PM

Yup, even if you never age, you're eventually going to die. Whether it's from being hit by a bus or a bullet is irrelevant.

#20 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 10 December 2014 - 08:24 PM

Even the generally legitimate term 'biological immortality' (meaning the absence of mortality as a function of age) is frowned upon by many who are concerned about the immortalist connotations.

 

Biological immortality is not the absence of mortality as a function of age, but the absence of increase in mortality beyond some age. See for example the first article here: http://www.longecity.../_/feature/book


Edited by Antonio2014, 10 December 2014 - 08:32 PM.


#21 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 10 December 2014 - 08:56 PM

 

It appears that middle age life expectancy is increasing but what about the upper limit which i have followed for several years.  They seem to die off at about the same rate.  Upper age and health seem to be about the same.  If you are middle age 60-90 health seems to be better.  Middle age diseases seem to be getting solved but very old age seems to be about the same.  :(

 

It is your time to give proves now. The french Clement lived 120 years. Prove, that the such "upper limit" existed always.

 

 

120 or so is the present upper limit now but no one alive is that old.  In fact the average age of those above 110 is going down in recent years.  :(
 



#22 Marios Kyriazis

  • Guest
  • 466 posts
  • 255
  • Location:London UK

Posted 10 December 2014 - 09:20 PM


Even the generally legitimate term 'biological immortality' (meaning the absence of mortality as a function of age) is frowned upon by many who are concerned about the immortalist connotations.


Biological immortality is not the absence of mortality as a function of age, but the absence of increase in mortality beyond some age. See for example the first article here: http://www.longecity.../_/feature/book

It is the same thing.

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#23 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 11 December 2014 - 12:04 AM

In fact the average age of those above 110 is going down in recent years.  :(
 

 

Do you have any link to that data? I'm interested in the details.

 

It is the same thing.

 

No, it isn't. Absence of mortality is elimination of death.



#24 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 11 December 2014 - 01:32 AM

Yes, there are many sources that trace Super Centurions one monthly here on Longecity.



#25 Florin

  • Guest
  • 251 posts
  • 14
  • Location:United States

Posted 11 December 2014 - 01:51 AM

Yup, even if you never age, you're eventually going to die. Whether it's from being hit by a bus or a bullet is irrelevant.

 

Actually, there is a theoretical possibility that someone could live literally forever.

 

http://www.edge.org/...alog-or-digital
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/1301.1648 (starting from page 192)
http://www.longecity...ive/#entry14836
http://www.longecity...ity/#entry38190



#26 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 11 December 2014 - 07:51 AM

 

I'm fairly convinced that you are a another parallel instanstance of consciousness. I guess I could be wrong and be the only individual with consciousness in the universe, but somehow I doubt that. Even if that were true, I'd only re-live my life on an infinite loop since you can't experience nothingness.

I currently believe you essentially live the lives of everyone (past present and future) on an infinite loop. Of course, you can only be conscious of one instance at a time due to biological and physical constraints, but we're all parallel instances of the same entity.

 

 

Every one can believe in whatever he wants. So, what actually do you loose, in your theory, when you become immortal in one of the "loops"?

 



#27 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 11 December 2014 - 07:54 AM

 

 

It appears that middle age life expectancy is increasing but what about the upper limit which i have followed for several years.  They seem to die off at about the same rate.  Upper age and health seem to be about the same.  If you are middle age 60-90 health seems to be better.  Middle age diseases seem to be getting solved but very old age seems to be about the same.  :(

 

It is your time to give proves now. The french Clement lived 120 years. Prove, that the such "upper limit" existed always.

 

 

120 or so is the present upper limit now but no one alive is that old.  In fact the average age of those above 110 is going down in recent years.  :(
 

 

 

Where do you get your sources? I smell something rotten in them.

 



#28 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 11 December 2014 - 08:00 AM

Yup, even if you never age, you're eventually going to die. Whether it's from being hit by a bus or a bullet is irrelevant.

 

Yes, but these are preventable. The biggest cause of death, that we are totally helpless against is the aging.
 



#29 rezin

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 34 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 December 2014 - 09:24 AM

A great drawback in the life extension  movement is people talking about 'immortality' or living forever, when one really means 'abolishing aging'. The two concepts are not interchangeable, and using the wrong terminology merely confuses people. If we manage, somehow, to eliminate aging as a cause of death people will still die from any other cause. Even the generally legitimate term 'biological immortality' (meaning the absence of mortality as a function of age) is frowned upon by many who are concerned about the immortalist connotations. So, yes, immortality is stupid, but an indefinite (not infinite) lifespan is a real possibility.

 

Thank you, that's completely right. The term immortality is misused and thus creates wrong expectations in the Longevity or Transhuman movement.



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#30 gatornoot

  • Guest
  • 26 posts
  • 2
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 11 December 2014 - 01:13 PM


I'm fairly convinced that you are a another parallel instanstance of consciousness. I guess I could be wrong and be the only individual with consciousness in the universe, but somehow I doubt that. Even if that were true, I'd only re-live my life on an infinite loop since you can't experience nothingness.

I currently believe you essentially live the lives of everyone (past present and future) on an infinite loop. Of course, you can only be conscious of one instance at a time due to biological and physical constraints, but we're all parallel instances of the same entity.


Every one can believe in whatever he wants. So, what actually do you loose, in your theory, when you become immortal in one of the "loops"?


You can never be truly immortal. You're eventually going to die from something. The probabilities are eventually going to catch up with you. Even if you dig a hole in the ground and lie motionless for centuries, eventually the sun will expand and engulf the earth.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: immortality, value of life, life

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users