Poll: Immortality, with a price.
- Thread starter MegatonDesign
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Under present circumstances, yeah. I'd do it. But, for one, the probability of me having children at all is already very low.
But the overall implications of this are quite complex and there's a lot of weird inter-related issues that come up.
For one, you've stated that this is essentially no-aging style immortality. That's great and all, but you can still die.
And the not having children thing is related to the death rate. Especially considering if this were popular enough, it might be the case that nobody has children at all.
If the birth rate is 0, but the death rate is even as low as 1 death every 1000 years, we'll eventually go extinct.
And the death rate with this kind of immortality will undoubtedly be many orders of magnitude higher than that.
(Most countries have about 25 fatal car accidents for every million people every single year. Rates for other types of death are probably quite comparable.)
And (as Avistew pointed out), what if you have children already? Will you be doomed to die?
There's other social issues surrounding immortality too.
What happens to your career prospects if your 6000 year old boss never needs to retire?
What will happen to innovation when there are next to no children. Adults aren't renowned for shifting their way of thinking radically after all.
Usually, a radical shift in how something is looked at comes about because of a new person attempting to tackle the problem.
If the entire population is essentially static, that's not very likely to happen anymore.
(Of course, this is countered by skill. Someone who has had the opportunity to practice a particular skill for hundreds or even thousands of years might be able to do things no-one with a current human lifespan could even dream of.)
Further, what about the physical age issue?
If this immortality thing locks you in at whatever age you physically are when you take it, there's going to be big problems if you have immortals in the bodies of 20 year olds alongside those who are physically in their 70's or 80's
But the overall implications of this are quite complex and there's a lot of weird inter-related issues that come up.
For one, you've stated that this is essentially no-aging style immortality. That's great and all, but you can still die.
And the not having children thing is related to the death rate. Especially considering if this were popular enough, it might be the case that nobody has children at all.
If the birth rate is 0, but the death rate is even as low as 1 death every 1000 years, we'll eventually go extinct.
And the death rate with this kind of immortality will undoubtedly be many orders of magnitude higher than that.
(Most countries have about 25 fatal car accidents for every million people every single year. Rates for other types of death are probably quite comparable.)
And (as Avistew pointed out), what if you have children already? Will you be doomed to die?
There's other social issues surrounding immortality too.
What happens to your career prospects if your 6000 year old boss never needs to retire?
What will happen to innovation when there are next to no children. Adults aren't renowned for shifting their way of thinking radically after all.
Usually, a radical shift in how something is looked at comes about because of a new person attempting to tackle the problem.
If the entire population is essentially static, that's not very likely to happen anymore.
(Of course, this is countered by skill. Someone who has had the opportunity to practice a particular skill for hundreds or even thousands of years might be able to do things no-one with a current human lifespan could even dream of.)
Further, what about the physical age issue?
If this immortality thing locks you in at whatever age you physically are when you take it, there's going to be big problems if you have immortals in the bodies of 20 year olds alongside those who are physically in their 70's or 80's
It doesn't matter if you sterilize the immortals. By simply adding a burden on society (extra people) after they are removed from the equation population explosion will still happen. It's just that now the rich white guys will still be here consuming a fuckton of resources (I'm assuming immortality isn't easy or cheap).
If I was immortal I would get bored and start wars...for fun...then after that I would start gladiator fights...then something else to amuse me, when you know everything you know and love is going to die or everything is going to be the same forever it gets boring or really depressing, there is no fun in stagnation.
Anyway I want my own little mini me
Anyway I want my own little mini me
There are thousands of different issues of course, each with very different and very controversial answers. I'm not one to say whether it's morally right or wrong, it's just an interesting scenario, and ask whether people would sign up for it.CrystalShadow said:
I would like to have children some day and do not want to be immortal, life would be too complicated. Seeing people you know die over and over would be too much.
That's a good point, and a way "around" it. What if some people have all the children and "sell" them to others? Then some people might be immortal and still get kids (albeit not biological). It sounds like a flaw if the goal is overpopulation. There are as many people if ten couples have one kid each than if one couple has ten kids.Fagotto said:
What about people who are sterile? Is that the reason they exist? Or do they have no reason? I think it's a sad way to see life. Your sole purpose being to bring more people to the world, who are purposeless too until they do the same, over and over again.mikozero said:
Having kids isn't the only purpose life can have, even if you start with the premise that people need a purpose to begin with. You can bring things to the world other than new people (discoveries, art, etc) or you can be a doctor and save lives, or you can teach other people's children (who might even be older than you, they're still someone's child), and anyways you can adopt, too (the question only talks about bearing children). Not saying it's a choice between one or the other, either, you can be a doctor and have kids, or a teacher and have kids, but you can also have kids and do nothing else, and I don't see why being a doctor and not having kids would be inferior to having kids and not being a doctor, for instance.
Lots of people are better off not having kids (because they wouldn't be able to care for them, because both kids and parents would be miserable, and similar reasons) and it's much better when people are aware of that fact. (Of course you're also free not to want kids if you'd make a great parent.)
Yes, having children is an instinct. Does that mean everyone has it? Not necessarily. Does that mean everyone who has it needs to follow it? Hell no. Many people can make the intellectual decision to fight their instinct if it would have bad consequences in their specific situation.
Why can't I freeze my sperm and then become immortal? I mean, what point is having eternity to become an evil undying super genius if I don't spawn my own nemesis?
Barbed choices take all of the fun out of life... and eternity.
Edit: Unless... I could use the extra time to invent stable cloning! Unable to reproduce indeed!
Barbed choices take all of the fun out of life... and eternity.
Edit: Unless... I could use the extra time to invent stable cloning! Unable to reproduce indeed!
Would YOU want to raise a child who will grow old and die?
If you answered no, then you see why this isn't a problem for me.
If you answered yes, adopt.
If you answered no, then you see why this isn't a problem for me.
If you answered yes, adopt.
