What is it that makes people want to live forever? I suppose some of it might be fear of death (or at least the means by which it occurs). Some of it might be that they just don't want to "leave the party", afraid that they'll miss something.
Equally, it's intriguing how many people view the idea of immortality with horror. After all, what's so bad about it?
For the sake of argument, let's assume that we could achieve immortality and still retain the anatomy and physiology of a 30-year old (just an arbitrary number). If we're not careful we could use eternity to procrastinate about "getting into shape". It does make me wonder about how much unused exercise equipment someone could accumulate given forever.
Well, now that we have all eternity to sit around, we have to consider how we'd actually live our lives. Some people view this as an opportunity to study and learn all those subjects that they currently don't have time for, but that seems like a weak argument. After all, if you have eternity, what's the rush?
However, let's suppose that we do precisely that, where we devote ourselves to pursuing our interests and do everything we've put off. How many PhD's would be enough? Twenty? Thirty? At which point, does the entire process simply become tedious and no longer serves to motivate? After all, since we have all of eternity, it's not like we have to accomplish anything in a hurry.
Well let's go to more mundane matters. I'm assuming that there will still be a need to have an economy, so that presumes that we'll all still be working. I can't even imagine the feeling of knowing that you have to work for all of eternity. More specifically, knowing that everyone that was there before you will continue to remain.
OK, so maybe that doesn't sound so great. How about at the personal level?
Well, we'll have to start labeling our offspring by generation numbers. Instead of generation X, it would be generation-32, just to keep it straight. Of course, I don't know what the world has to offer them, since every niche is presumably filled with someone from the previous generation, so they'll probably just continue living at home. After 32 generations of this, it'll probably be YOUR home.
Of course, if fads and fashions maintain their tendency to be repeated,then we can be confident that our tie-dyed clothes and bell-bottomed jeans will be fashionable again every few generations, so we don't ever need to throw anything away.
Judging by the success rate of marriages, I can only speculate that given eternity, this will tend to plunge. There are too many couples that can barely tolerate each other after a decade, let alone eternity. So I guess we'll have to assume that given the ability to live forever, at some point we'll probably have everyone on the planet as part of our extended family.
It has also been suggested, that human populations will limit themselves to one child per couple, which would cause the population to stabilize after about 32-33 generations. Of course, this presumes that no one ever has twins, or violates this rule, but if we assume it to be true, then at some point there will be nothing new on the earth (as far as humans are concerned).
If this comes to pass, why not extend immortality to our pets?
Anyway, some of the questions that come to mind include:
1. If we live forever, at what age are you considered a deadbeat?
2. When is a reasonable time to move out and get a job?
3. How many reruns can we actually tolerate? Can you imagine seeing Law and Order Season 1030?
I'm sure there's more, but for me, I don't believe I'll have to worry about finding the answers.
Comments
kerr jac | 09/06/09 | 10:53 AM
Fred Phillips | 09/07/09 | 23:13 PM
So this represents a fundamental social problem and has nothing to do with politics. At which point do we recognize that there are no longer any efforts that can reasonably be pursued to prolong someone's life? Clearly the options aren't infinite, so where do we draw the line? When do choices cease being reasonable? How much resource should a society be prepared to put into saving someone?
For that matter, can we really distinguish between prolonging life versus prolonging death?
Gerhard Adam | 09/08/09 | 13:28 PM
The Politics of Death: Americans fear health reform because they fear the reaper.
kerr jac | 09/11/09 | 10:15 AM
Bored, no way…… I would love to spend my time roaming around the earth and simply have no restriction on time to study the environment or to finally have time to learn how to be proficient at playing the piano or guitar. If I am living forever, surely my family would also. I could go to bed at night not having to worry if sickness would claim one of them. Really all the governments would be temporary and un-necessary. War would be a thing of the past (who would you kill). Taxes would come and go and most likely would be a thing of the past. No pressure to earn a living. The notion that everlasting life would be boring or in some way not good is the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard. To the contrary as a race we might be able, for once, to finish something we start.
Micah (not verified) | 09/21/09 | 16:42 PM
In addition, you're suggesting that sickness and accidents would be eliminated, and no one would have to work, although you're a bit obscure on how this would happen.
I don't know how you went from immortality and the curing of all diseases to no taxes, and no pressure to earn a living.
I hear this a lot, but no one has ever demonstrated why this would be the case. Especially given today's political climate, I'm actually a bit surprised at such rhetoric, because you're really describing a communist utopia.
Gerhard Adam | 09/21/09 | 16:58 PM
What would be the point in being proficient at the piano or guitar? Its fun and would be an accomplishment for me and that is just me!
Where could you possibly want to roam on the earth that you hadn't already seen thousands of times? You would not concede that things never change.... would you? After all if you were immortal, you could witness evolution as it happens. For you that would be really boring, right! Since you spend so much time blogging around here, you could fight off all of us scientific creationists one and all. It is bad logic, man. You have to know that!!
If you cant die then what would be the purpose of war? The opposition government would have no reason to attack since they cant kill anyone, why invade. It would be a huge waste of time. As you say..... we would have plenty of it.
I did describe a utopia. To most rational people who desire immortality in line with their God given instinct everlasting life would be a utopia.
And since when did communism or any human government ever purport to offer everlasting life / immortality. FYI I don't have any political agenda, views or vote for that matter. That's just a provocative comment trying to divert attention away from your insane assumption that living forever will be boring. For the record all human governments terrible beyond words.
The whole notion behind this is a rip on people of faith. The whole premise is absurd and not well thought out. Good humor bad premise.
Crowder (not verified) | 09/23/09 | 16:07 PM
It has nothing to do with faith, although I'm amazed that people don't understand just how long eternity is. The things you're describing as "curiosity" are simply tedious over the long haul.
You're describing the ultimate motivation killer; no needs, no problems, and no incentives.
My statement about a communist utopia, was not political, but rather economic since you indicated that there would be no need to work. So apparently there would be no need to eat or produce anything (since it would clearly be wrong to have some work while others just hang around), and according to your definition you can't die, hence you can't starve or dehydrate.
You also can't apparently die of hot or cold, so there's really no reason to not got to Mars or Venus since nothing can kill us. For that matter, we could just float around in space and take our time getting to any planet we like.
It would turn an exciting interesting existence into an eternal game of tic-tac-toe. Let me know how long you can play before you would go insane.
Gerhard Adam | 09/23/09 | 16:37 PM
I make no assumptions outside of biblical context about what we may be able to do in the future if we could attain everlasting life. No one can attain everlasting life or immortality on their own, both are gifts,that can only be given by God. I wholeheartedly disagree that everlasting life would be boring. Say your presumption is true, that eternal life would be boring. The alternative would be death. Needless to say at that point you would be really bored only you would never know it because you are dead. So I will take immortality or everlasting life and boredom any day over the only alternative, death. To say otherwise is just sour grapes because as it could only serve as an excuse to act anyway you choose that is your choice. Lead an immoral life, hurt people at will, and at the end of it all awww... who needs everlasting life anyway.... it could only be boring. Actually, it really is just another excuse not to believe in God who will become the rewarder of those who constantly look for him and diminish his gift for the faithful as something that is not good in the long run. Faithful people put themselves in line for everlasting life because they have made the sacrifice of not doing everything that they choose, but rather, apply bible principles in their lives. The side effect is that the world is a better place because they do. The side effect for people asserting there is no God, there is no hope, has the opposite effect.
For the record biblical immortality can not be achieved by fleshly humans. Immortality is a gift that is reserved for faithful spirit creatures. For humans the most they can hope for is everlasting life. The difference being, everlasting life can be taken away, for example Adam & Eve. So outside of their environment (the Earth) they would no longer have everlasting life, they could die. Immortality or deathlessness, is reserved for spirit creatures that have proven faithful to God beyond question, and yes their environment could be universal.
Additionally, scientists can only guess how big the universe is. If the universe is actually infinite and is always expanding and changing, then we could always have something new to consider or discover. Even if we lived infinitely from this point on, just as humans with everlasting life confined to the realm of the earth.
Crowder (not verified) | 10/19/09 | 14:08 PM
However, more importantly, when one has all of eternity, there's also not much point in expending the effort. All of human effort is a result of change, typically by new individuals entering society while others die. This represents a perpetual rejuvenation that you're suggesting should be eliminated. What possible difference could anything make when everyone is essentially living the same experience with the same objective.
To say otherwise is just sour grapes because as it could only serve as
an excuse to act anyway you choose that is your choice. Lead an immoral
life, hurt people at will, and at the end of it all awww... who needs
everlasting life anyway.... it could only be boring.
That statement is just tedious. I don't know what kind of individual is so shallow and disturbed that they need the threat of some divine retribution before they can behave themselves. The simple reality is that the many of the most zealous Christians are those that have so thoroughly screwed up their lives that only a God could tolerate listening to their whining. I don't need a divine "big brother" looking over my shoulder do know what's right and act accordingly.
Gerhard Adam | 10/20/09 | 16:12 PM
Nostalgia would be the #1 industry. The shops would fill with materials portraying, and reflecting the sad demise of, every technological change. Oh! If only they hadn't pulled down the nuclear power station to build a solar array. And I think it was sheer vandalism to destroy that beautiful offshore wind farm to make way for those new-fangled desalinators.
I could go on - and frequently do. ;)