We have eradicated DEATH

Mortality is what maintains the vitality of humanity. If there is no/very little death and very few or no births, then human civilisation will stagnate. If immortality becomes reality then many politicians may try to bribe the populace with promises of such, but ultimately this must fail. I know that it's hard to face death, it's tough for most people to accept that they will die one day. Life extension technology should satisfy most people. It could, for the most part, allow a much more relaxed approach to life on the part of everyone.

Immortality on the other hand, should be viewed as a curse and not a blessing. If you make someone live forever against their will, that could indeed be an eternal punishment.
If someone is to live forever because they want to, they should satisfy some specific criteria. Would they be able to benefit personally from an infinite lifespan? Would they be able to cope with the loneliness that may come with watching everyone else you've ever met die over time? Would humanity in general benefit from their continuous existence? Are they able to adapt to the times, and stay in tune with the ever-moving present?

As people age, their mindset may become more rigid and less receptive to present and future information. Whilst immortality could allow people to live forever and give the brain the capacity to continue learning beyond its original best before date, the "mind" can age independently of the body. What are we to do with people who are biologically immortal yet have a mindset stuck centuries in the past? This could lead to terrible stagnation. Some people would simply give up their will to live and WANT to die.

Yet again, with the existence of immortality, life could indeed be alot slower. Whole decades might become uneventful footnotes, and personalities developed over a much slower time. However, even with slower aging of the mind, there would have to be an end to personal development, somewhere. An immortal, physically able person might eventually have learnt and done near enough everything within the limits of human technology. What would separate them from other people, except trivial details of when and how they did it, and rather superficial differences in their appearance and "personality"? Life is often defined by the things you haven't done and don't know when you die.
Might eternal youth cause people to be confined to a constant state of immaturity, with an inability to reflect on their past or even pay attention to time itself?

Whatever happens, immortality must not be available at a whim. It would be the worst mistake to grant eternal life without considering the purpose and value of human mortality, and indeed whether or not individual humans actually deserve to live forever.

:blah:

Reply 63

favh

Sounds a bit dull, and £1,800/year? I can do better.

Getting to see areas of the universe others will never be able to, as well as getting to live forever (which is the real wage) seems dull to you?

That's cool, more for me :cool:

Reply 64

Pop_tart

the OP said ''it's the year 2050'' that's only 40 years from now. There is NO WAY in hell that we will be able to colonise other planets it just 40 years. but you know what WHO KNOWS :biggrin:

My bad! I thought it was 2500.

Well, I can say that we won't be able to "kill" death by 2050 either!

Reply 65

Nebuduck

6

The 'decay of brain cells that begins in late teens' sounds like an alcohol related decay to me. With that in mind, halting the decay sounds like it might involve some very kill-joy things. Hence, I keep death, and I keep my cheeky evening tipple.

Reply 66

King_Blumpkins

2

I'd live forever, i'd actually take immortality at any chance i'd get if it where at all obtainable. Just think of the amazing oppurtunities you'd have, witnissing events that will be recorded in the history books, and if you'd at all have inquiring mind you'd be able to become a super genius within a few decades, only downside is you'd have to move from one location to the other within a certain time span before people became suspicious of you and watching family and loved ones die of course.

I'd also like to assume that we can die by wounds such as decapitation, some type of invading pathogen, etc?

Reply 67

gildartz

14

don't impliment it until we have colonised other planets

Reply 68

DannyBoy123

The main problem for me from a personal point of view is that in 2050 I'll be 60...not necessarily sure I want to be stuck in 60 year olds body for all of time.

I suppose if we were immortal it wouldn't be altogether strange for a 60 year old to be found in Fabric on a friday night gurning his tits off. lol.

Reply 69

ily_em

People could still die, couldn't they? You've stopped cell degeneration so people won't get diseases but what about people who are murdered or die in car accidents etc?

Reply 70

concubine

Mann18

Well I'd tend to vote no.
I wouldn't want to live forever.

But at that stage of civilisation, it's likely that we'll have the ability to colonise other planets, so I'd vote Yes, as long as we could move people to Mars or whatever.

I'm pretty much certain that colonization of other worlds will come a long time after we 'eradicate death' and that overpopulation will pose a very, very serious problem before the stopping of aging and the like becomes available to more than a tiny minority of super rich.

I don't really have any interest in being immortal but as long as I'm enjoying life I don't see why I'd choose to die given another option. 2000-2500 should be incredible, especially in terms of science and technology.

Reply 71

tucker672

1

This doesn't exactly eradicate death, as if you had your had chopped off or shot yourself you would still die. But anyways I would vote for it, personally I would like a selective system, first criteria is that you want to live "forever", the second is based on a series of factors which calculates your worth to society, for example, I don't really want a serial paedophile to live forever.

Reply 72

concubine

I'm pretty much certain that colonization of other worlds will come a long time after we 'eradicate death' and that overpopulation will pose a very, very serious problem before the stopping of aging and the like becomes available to more than a tiny minority of super rich.

I don't really have any interest in being immortal but as long as I'm enjoying life I don't see why I'd choose to die given another option. 2000-2500 should be incredible, especially in terms of science and technology.

You think the ability to travel at speeds pertinent to space travel will come long after we've reversed the ageing process?!

I would say whilst the first is logically possible, the latter is perhaps not.

I'd vote no :smile:

Mann18

You think the ability to travel at speeds pertinent to space travel will come long after we've reversed the ageing process?!

I would say whilst the first is logically possible, the latter is perhaps not.

Well, I completely disagree with you and I'm sure many others will too. ;p

That and getting something to travel FTL is one thing, getting the people and equipment required to another world (assuming you find a body that can readily support human life) for colonization is one thing, terraforming a planet would be a colossal undertaking.

Reply 75

concubine

Well, I completely disagree with you and I'm sure many others will too. ;p

That and getting something to travel FTL is one thing, getting the people and equipment required to another world (assuming you find a body that can readily support human life) for colonization is one thing, terraforming a planet would be a colossal undertaking.

The theory behind wormhole travel exists now. The theory behind reversing the ageing process is not.

At least one of the moons of Jupiter has ice (and thus water) from there it shouldn't be too difficult to create a breathable atmosphere.

Reply 76

IWantSomeMushu

I honestly don't know, I mean I would love to be able to live for ridiculously long and see where interstellar travel takes us, but its gonna be a bit boring waiting for that long lol.

Reply 77

concubine