Poll: Would you trade the ability to have children for immortality?

Recommended Videos

targren

New member
May 13, 2009
1,314
0
0
Are you kidding? I'd trade the ability to have children for a Twix bar... Still a better deal than trading $300 for a vasectomy.
 

NightHawk21

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,273
0
0
No question in my mind. Absolutely, but...

Hunter65416 said:
-You would be age immortal meaning if you were careful you could live forever (jumping of a tall building will kill you)
This is stupid. I want to be completely immortal I don't want to trade for my immortality only to be stabbed or shot and die anyways. Still even under this restriction I would probably choose yes, assuming I stay young and keep my mind.
 

Kair

New member
Sep 14, 2008
674
0
0
Human evolution would stop and the species would die out if everyone chose so. If a portion chose not to live forever, those few who didn't choose it would ironically be the ancestors of those who would outlast the immortals much later.

Also, immortality is hell.
 

Otterby

New member
Mar 10, 2011
27
0
0
Joining the small group of decliners.

I think life is more appreciated when it's in lesser supply, and I don't want to hog it all to myself, and I do want to see my (not necessarily biological, but as said here, not enough orphans for everyone) kids grow up, and I don't want to increase my probability of dying in a gruesome accident to almost certain, and I don't think humanity not renewing itself is a good thing, yadda yadda yadda.
 

DoomyMcDoom

New member
Jul 4, 2008
1,411
0
0
It would be a hassle, if I were the only one able to choose it, after enough generations I would likely be assasinated by someone jealous of my longjevity anyway... that or I would just hafta illegally fabricate a new set of documents in an ever more complicated system faking my own death hundreds of times, and try and hide myself as a normal mediocre person, I think that would probably get so annoying I'd end up just offing myself or going somewhere to live in solitude unrecognized by the world as alive for long stretches of time, which would in turn probably bore me to death. Thing is, unless It was built on a clause of "if you don't have children you'll live forever" rather than just not being able to ever by making the choice... then i would go for it, cuz it'd be like freezing my lifespan at a specific point, then if i decided to, I could just have kids and die of old age or something like a normal person... but with a gap of a few hundred years in the middle where I was like 3 other people as well(due to hiding the fact that I'm immortally ageless to avoid assasination)...
 

n00beffect

New member
May 8, 2009
523
0
0
Yes, of course. That's like asking me 'Would you trade version 1.0 for version 2.0' - the answer is obvious. 'Immortality', as it stands, or rather having children is our subconcious desire to actually remain alive, immortal if you will, by continuing our existance through our kids. 'Leaving a print', and 'Passing-on our harritage', and all that. And I see what you did there, it's a very good question, which in a way determines you to be either selfish or altruistic. That would be the case, however, if I myself don't find both options to be equally selfish, in most cases. Having kids is an act of selfishness, because most people do it, not for the sake of 'giving life' etc., but because they desperately wish to continue their own, in a way, and because they realise that that would be impossible, they decide to have kids, and so content themselves with the thought, that their seed has been laid (literally). The result of that are those kids with mommy/daddy issues, who blindly follow in their parents' footsteps and constantly seek approval of them.

So, in conclusion, I'd say I'd take the real immortality option, for the sake of curiousity. Plus, who's to say that I can't adopt a few kids here and there, and I mean, it would basically be the same, and I'd be doing the world a favour, and the kids as well, so double-win. Yeah, sure, I'll never see my own paraplegic retard sprout out of some desease-ridden junky, but hey! that doesn't matter when you're fucking Dracula, now does it?
 

AstylahAthrys

New member
Apr 7, 2010
1,317
0
0
Fertility is something you take for granted until you lose it. I can't have kids, and though I never wanted one really, it sucks to know I won't have a choice, unless I spend oodles of money on treatments. Also, I don't want to live forever, so perhaps it's good I can't ever make this trade.
 

Otterby

New member
Mar 10, 2011
27
0
0
NightHawk21 said:
Hunter65416 said:
-You would be age immortal meaning if you were careful you could live forever (jumping of a tall building will kill you)
This is stupid. I want to be completely immortal I don't want to trade for my immortality only to be stabbed or shot and die anyways. Still even under this restriction I would probably choose yes, assuming I stay young and keep my mind.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17185_7-awesome-super-powers-ruined-by-science_p2.html

About not being killed by way of wounding... See point number 1: Immortality.
 

Ham_authority95

New member
Dec 8, 2009
3,496
0
0
I don't really want either, so how do I choose this?

How about you give me a 150 year lifespan and for me to be sterile for 50 of those years?
 

fenrizz

New member
Feb 7, 2009
2,790
0
0
I already have two children, so yes I would.

EDIT:
Optiluiz said:
What kind of creature wouldn't??? You could always adopt; having children is way overrated.
I assume you do not have children of your own?

I do, and I can testify that it is in no way overrated.
Not in the slightest.
 

rutger5000

New member
Oct 19, 2010
1,052
0
0
Eeeuhm I don't want either. So I dunno what to choice. Really I don't get why the escapists is so fixated on immortality. I must have seen at least a dozen of threads about it, but who in their right minds would ever want immortality.
Jortluz is right, first thing to know about immortatlity is that you're not supposed to want it.
Anyway if you would want to be immortal why not just addopt?
 

Whispering Cynic

New member
Nov 11, 2009
356
0
0
Sure. There's just so much stuff out there to see, explore, experience and simply not enough time to do so. I refuse to waste eighteen plus years of my life taking care of some ingrate spawn of mine anyway, so I'd take the deal in a second.
 

somonels

New member
Oct 12, 2010
1,209
0
0
Heeell yes I'd let my testicles develop into another heart, and other physical changes, to give myself not immortality but a reeealy long lifespan and an intellect so vast that I become but a vessel to logic.

Quack quack.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
No, not because I want children, but because I don't want to live forever.

Most of you aren't aware of the fact that everything that secures our lives right now are at an end. Every kind of metal needed for our technology is depleting. China got monopoly on many of the rare elements needed to create computers, not because they really need it, but because they want us to squirm.
Noble gases required in hospital can rarely be purchased, silicon required for several important tasks is also depleting despite being one of the more common elements we have. Phosphor needed to create DNA and required for life is depleting. Would I want to see a world where everyone around me starts suffering? Would I want a world without computers or other kind of handy technology?
We will find new technology and new elements can be used in ways we can't imagine. However that will be heavier metals because we know uses for the lighter ones and the heavier ones are very rare. Even if we manage to make due with lighter metals to perform the tasks of the heavy ones or find ways to use the heavy metals in the center of the earth they will also be limited ones we start using them in huge amounts. The phosphor shortage might strike while I am still alive unless we get new ways of getting it. I would not want to live through that for anything.