Immortality and Suicide
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Immortality and Suicide
Watching "New Frontiers" on CNN the consensus of opinion was that at some point in the not too distant future mankinf will be able to extend life to the point of being able to live as long as you want to. The operative word for this discussion is "want". Being able to live for extremely extended periods of time may lead to a syndrome of just getting tired of being alive (feel free to jump in here Roid). So with the ethics and laws we now have concerning suicide, how are we going to justify ending a life that has gone on too long?
Good one, but I doubt that we'll be living forever anytime soon. Also, I'm sure we won't stay young, we'll just last longer. This means more "being an old geezer" than the times of youth. And personally, I don't want to live until 250 with 170 years of my life being "old". I would rather just die at 85.
So, suicide for me.
So, suicide for me.
Re: Immortality and Suicide
the ethics of suicide? well i suppose i could say how i feel about it:woodchip wrote:Watching "New Frontiers" on CNN the consensus of opinion was that at some point in the not too distant future mankinf will be able to extend life to the point of being able to live as long as you want to. The operative word for this discussion is "want". Being able to live for extremely extended periods of time may lead to a syndrome of just getting tired of being alive (feel free to jump in here Roid). So with the ethics and laws we now have concerning suicide, how are we going to justify ending a life that has gone on too long?
Your life is your own, everyone of us is a seperate entity and (all of us theoretically) can survive on our own without belonging to any "hive". Society is an OPT-IN institution. When you are born into this world you don't owe anyone anything, there is no "human tax" you have to pay to any organisation for simply existing.
If you want to kill yourself, who has the right to stop you? Anyone presuming to have the right to stop you from killing yourself is presuming that you belong to someone else, as if you are someone's property.
Victimless laws such as those prohibiting suicide treat you as property of society. They treat you as a SLAVE. As your masters, they demand to have control of your life. Armys, Police, Prisons, these are all just MIGHT. MIGHT of an organisation that presumes to self-enforce that - by default of being born human - i belong to it.
but no, i am not a slave.
so to me that's the justification for ending your own life - it's just an inherent right that all beings have. Some would have you believe that you do not have such a right - that you belong to someone else and it's therefore not your choice to make - they presume too much.
Neither presume to tell me howto live, or howto die. For what concern is it of yours
Interesting point, Krom.
So are we talking about using technological means to extend your life? If you do so, and then at some later point decide to stop doing so, is that still suicide? Isn't suicide where you take active steps to end your life before what its normal term might have been? What if the technological means of life extension looks "natural" instead of mechanical (bioengineering, genetic engineering, nanotechnology); does that mean that this is still a natural lifespan?
I don't think I'd want to be immortal, but I can think of a number of reasons why I'd want to go backwards in time ...(just for a visit, mind you)
So are we talking about using technological means to extend your life? If you do so, and then at some later point decide to stop doing so, is that still suicide? Isn't suicide where you take active steps to end your life before what its normal term might have been? What if the technological means of life extension looks "natural" instead of mechanical (bioengineering, genetic engineering, nanotechnology); does that mean that this is still a natural lifespan?
I don't think I'd want to be immortal, but I can think of a number of reasons why I'd want to go backwards in time ...(just for a visit, mind you)
The opposite end of the argument is: How do you justify extending a life that would only use up vital resources necessary for younger, more essential members of society? World population is not dropping, so why make matters worse by extending the lives of people who would only become an added burden for society? Would their extended lives be worth living?
Excellent point.Shoku wrote:The opposite end of the argument is: How do you justify extending a life that would only use up vital resources necessary for younger, more essential members of society? World population is not dropping, so why make matters worse by extending the lives of people who would only become an added burden for society? Would their extended lives be worth living?
Look at Schiavo
You have no rights. Even if it makes one religious nut feel good and you have no brain left, keep pumping in the food!
This is FUNNY!
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war45.html
You have no rights. Even if it makes one religious nut feel good and you have no brain left, keep pumping in the food!
This is FUNNY!
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war45.html
What a warm and loving bunch you all are! Roid says that if someone wants to commit suicide, we can evidence our moral superiority by letting them; Krom says some have to keep living to support those around them, while Shoku takes a stab at assigning value to lives in terms of productivity and resources. Is this what passes for moral argument around here these days?
You can't assign value to life by what keeps society running smoothly. Or rather, you can, but that's a good way to build a monstrous society. You can kill the elderly, or the disabled, or the weak, or the genetically impure to make way for the "younger, more essential" members of society--and that may indeed make your society run more smoothly. But who would want to live in a society like that? Who would possibly want to live in a utopia built on murder? Even if it worked (and historically, it never has), it would be wrong.
It's cold to think that those who want to die should go ahead and do it. This is not the mark of a philosophy that wants to protect your rights. This is the mark of a philosophy that doesn't care about you. When I was a teenager, there was a while where I wanted to die. Don't most teenagers have times like that? What would be the mark of friendship--to help me, or to try to talk me out of it?
Life is valuable because it is life. People are valuable for themseves. Not because they make the machine of society run, not because they feel like they are valuable, not because others depend on them. Life just is valuable; this is the necessary moral axiom of any good society. Young, fit policemen and soldiers endure danger or even sacrifice themselves so that the weak and ailing can live; not because they believe sociey will run smoother if the weak survive and the strong die, but because they believe those people have value--however weak or strong they are. We--as a society--believe that. We have to, if our society is going to be a place worth living in.
It is a naive belief that morality trades only in the physical and tangible. It trades in meaning. All death is not equivalent. Suicides aren't always morally the same. Actions which bring about the end of a life can have very different moral values, depending not on the clinical fact that a life ends, but on what the ending of that life means. A soldier knowingly dying to save his friends is different from a person shooting themselves in a fit of depression, which is different from a an elderly cancer patient refusing treatment, which is different from a drug addict overdosing, which is different from one spouse knowingly contracting AIDS from another, which is different again from the rebel who in pride refuses to surrender. Even though in each of these cases a person knowingly ends his own life, the moral meaning is different. Sometimes they're saying that life isn't valuable; sometimes they're saying it is; sometimes they have something even more valuable in mind. It would indeed be a monstrous society that forced each of these people to do their utmost to survive, but that doesn't mean it's the height of moral virtue to leave the depressed and the drug addict to their own devices.
Some people think that the height of morality is leaving people alone. I don't buy that. The height of morality is doing what is best for others out of love. That's the difference between, "An it harm none, do as ye will" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Are you harming someone if they want to kill themselves and you just watch? Well... no, not by any sensible definition; it's the same as if you weren't there. But you could be helping.
Individual rights are important, but they don't trump loving concern. Life is valuable. People are valuable. Actions which end a life aren't always wrong, but actions which say a life isn't worth living, or people aren't worth keeping around, always have to be.
You can't assign value to life by what keeps society running smoothly. Or rather, you can, but that's a good way to build a monstrous society. You can kill the elderly, or the disabled, or the weak, or the genetically impure to make way for the "younger, more essential" members of society--and that may indeed make your society run more smoothly. But who would want to live in a society like that? Who would possibly want to live in a utopia built on murder? Even if it worked (and historically, it never has), it would be wrong.
It's cold to think that those who want to die should go ahead and do it. This is not the mark of a philosophy that wants to protect your rights. This is the mark of a philosophy that doesn't care about you. When I was a teenager, there was a while where I wanted to die. Don't most teenagers have times like that? What would be the mark of friendship--to help me, or to try to talk me out of it?
Life is valuable because it is life. People are valuable for themseves. Not because they make the machine of society run, not because they feel like they are valuable, not because others depend on them. Life just is valuable; this is the necessary moral axiom of any good society. Young, fit policemen and soldiers endure danger or even sacrifice themselves so that the weak and ailing can live; not because they believe sociey will run smoother if the weak survive and the strong die, but because they believe those people have value--however weak or strong they are. We--as a society--believe that. We have to, if our society is going to be a place worth living in.
It is a naive belief that morality trades only in the physical and tangible. It trades in meaning. All death is not equivalent. Suicides aren't always morally the same. Actions which bring about the end of a life can have very different moral values, depending not on the clinical fact that a life ends, but on what the ending of that life means. A soldier knowingly dying to save his friends is different from a person shooting themselves in a fit of depression, which is different from a an elderly cancer patient refusing treatment, which is different from a drug addict overdosing, which is different from one spouse knowingly contracting AIDS from another, which is different again from the rebel who in pride refuses to surrender. Even though in each of these cases a person knowingly ends his own life, the moral meaning is different. Sometimes they're saying that life isn't valuable; sometimes they're saying it is; sometimes they have something even more valuable in mind. It would indeed be a monstrous society that forced each of these people to do their utmost to survive, but that doesn't mean it's the height of moral virtue to leave the depressed and the drug addict to their own devices.
Some people think that the height of morality is leaving people alone. I don't buy that. The height of morality is doing what is best for others out of love. That's the difference between, "An it harm none, do as ye will" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Are you harming someone if they want to kill themselves and you just watch? Well... no, not by any sensible definition; it's the same as if you weren't there. But you could be helping.
Individual rights are important, but they don't trump loving concern. Life is valuable. People are valuable. Actions which end a life aren't always wrong, but actions which say a life isn't worth living, or people aren't worth keeping around, always have to be.
That was not a case of wether or not Schiavo had a right to die or not, it was the case of Schiavo's former husband commiting murder and getting the state to allow it. Get it straight.Ned wrote:Look at Schiavo
You have no rights. Even if it makes one religious nut feel good and you have no brain left, keep pumping in the food!
This is FUNNY!
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war45.html
I was hoping this wasn't going to be a discussion on the merits of suicide in general, rather to discuss living a impossibly long HEALTHY life and just getting tired of it.
"so why make matters worse by extending the lives of people who would only become an added burden for society? Would their extended lives be worth living?"
Shoku
Actually bud, you got it all wrong. The extended life people would amass property and fortunes over hundreds of years and the young would be valuless.
"so why make matters worse by extending the lives of people who would only become an added burden for society? Would their extended lives be worth living?"
Shoku
Actually bud, you got it all wrong. The extended life people would amass property and fortunes over hundreds of years and the young would be valuless.
The idea of a society acknowledging its members the right to end their own lives does not require that we would have to leave alone (on an individual level) those that we might suspect are contemplating suicide. Individually, we would still be able to attempt to intervene and show love (as any one individual perceives it) as much as always.
About the initial topic, one of the qualities that gives things value is their scarcity. If the earth were to become overpopulated, the scarcity of life would decrease. Or, if one were to live 10,000 years, the scarcity of life (on an individual level) would again decrease. At some point, the value of life would decrease to the extent that the value of the prospect of eternal peace or an afterlife might outweight the value of life.
In a nutshell, one of the things that gives value to life is the ability to lose it. If this suddenly disappeared, I think that life's value may vastly diminish.
About the initial topic, one of the qualities that gives things value is their scarcity. If the earth were to become overpopulated, the scarcity of life would decrease. Or, if one were to live 10,000 years, the scarcity of life (on an individual level) would again decrease. At some point, the value of life would decrease to the extent that the value of the prospect of eternal peace or an afterlife might outweight the value of life.
In a nutshell, one of the things that gives value to life is the ability to lose it. If this suddenly disappeared, I think that life's value may vastly diminish.
You are right. My coment was a cynical view based on the failure of human society to adjust. Over-population IS a major issue with regard to the quality of life. Right now on earth people are starving to death. Imagine the horrible conditions that would exist if people could live forever. (There was an old Star Trek episode about a civilization where no one died, and they valued the sanctity of life so much that it was standing-room-only everywhere on the planet; an extreme example, but only one of the problems that we would need to face if left on our own to deal with a similar situation.) The only way eternal life would be worth living is if the entire human condition changed - that means the removal of greed from every part of society. And there would need to be an end to birth - the earth cannot support an ever-growing number of humans.Drakona wrote:You can't assign value to life by what keeps society running smoothly.
i'm not sure if i want to post this....
if you know me Draconia, you know i care.
i can try to talk someone out of it, but as a matter of rights it's essentially their choice. in the end i have to be open to the possability that i'm wrong and they are right. if they argue that point to me - that i have no right to tell them what life is all about, i have no right to take them under my wing, i can't force it on them. they are right and i can't deny it.
Yes, it saddens me. But that's life, i can't have it the way i want it, i can't control other people. When it comes down the the brass tacks of the situation, i have to convince them to trust me.
i can't DEMAND anything. I can be very convincing, but if you look at the solids of the powerplay going on, i'm absolutely powerless. I come into the situation with nothing, and i listen. I may be manipulative, but if you cut through all of that you see that it's entirely up to the other person to trust me. Even the act of talking is essentially reaching out for trust - by talking you are already assuming - trusting - that someone is truly listening.
Draconia the last thing i do is sit back and watch. If you're around, "These people need help, lets help these people" is what you will hear me saying. That's when we start desperately searching for that sliver of trust left in them that will allow us into their minds.
But what terrifies me, is the very real possability that there will not be even that sliver. That there will be nothing to grab hold of, and they will slip away while there's absolutely nothing you can do about it but force yourself to watch - to let it brand into your conscience the scarring possability that YOU FAILED.
But there is the possability that there's nothing that could have been done.
I can't prove either way. I have a variety of reasons for believing the former, one is that those kinds of scars make you better at what you do. But i remain open to the latter - that there may be nothing that can be done. Maybe that makes me a coward.
wow, i can't hold the entire world on my shoulders, who knew huh?
so this is why i recognise a limit, i may have never seen it, but i remain open to it's existance.
and when someone is on their way out, i remain open to the possability that they are right. Even though i'll never say it to them, internally i think their views deserve respect, no matter how dark.
if you know me Draconia, you know i care.
i can try to talk someone out of it, but as a matter of rights it's essentially their choice. in the end i have to be open to the possability that i'm wrong and they are right. if they argue that point to me - that i have no right to tell them what life is all about, i have no right to take them under my wing, i can't force it on them. they are right and i can't deny it.
Yes, it saddens me. But that's life, i can't have it the way i want it, i can't control other people. When it comes down the the brass tacks of the situation, i have to convince them to trust me.
i can't DEMAND anything. I can be very convincing, but if you look at the solids of the powerplay going on, i'm absolutely powerless. I come into the situation with nothing, and i listen. I may be manipulative, but if you cut through all of that you see that it's entirely up to the other person to trust me. Even the act of talking is essentially reaching out for trust - by talking you are already assuming - trusting - that someone is truly listening.
Draconia the last thing i do is sit back and watch. If you're around, "These people need help, lets help these people" is what you will hear me saying. That's when we start desperately searching for that sliver of trust left in them that will allow us into their minds.
But what terrifies me, is the very real possability that there will not be even that sliver. That there will be nothing to grab hold of, and they will slip away while there's absolutely nothing you can do about it but force yourself to watch - to let it brand into your conscience the scarring possability that YOU FAILED.
But there is the possability that there's nothing that could have been done.
I can't prove either way. I have a variety of reasons for believing the former, one is that those kinds of scars make you better at what you do. But i remain open to the latter - that there may be nothing that can be done. Maybe that makes me a coward.
wow, i can't hold the entire world on my shoulders, who knew huh?
so this is why i recognise a limit, i may have never seen it, but i remain open to it's existance.
and when someone is on their way out, i remain open to the possability that they are right. Even though i'll never say it to them, internally i think their views deserve respect, no matter how dark.
-
Phoenix Red
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 2:01 am
Climb down off the high horse. There is no objective right and there is no objective value. Because YOU think someone should make the choice YOU prefer does not mean your opinion has the slightest weight outside your own head.Drakona wrote:something too long to quote in it's entirety
You are going to die. Live knowing that. Preventing a suicide does not save a person's life. It may make it longer. It may or may not make it more like the one you would like them to have. But it does not change the facts, only the timeline.
Don't interpret this as a bunch of emo crap that's saying nobody is important. Interpret it with relativity in mind. Intellectual relativity is a real and important issue, and if your own thinking is different enough from another person's, communication will not take place. You cannot help that person, only talk at them.
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4689
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
That's exactly how it works in the grasslands of Africa, and in every other natural habitat.Drakona wrote:You can't assign value to life by what keeps society running smoothly. Or rather, you can, but that's a good way to build a monstrous society. You can kill the elderly, or the disabled, or the weak, or the genetically impure to make way for the "younger, more essential" members of society--and that may indeed make your society run more smoothly. But who would want to live in a society like that? Who would possibly want to live in a utopia built on murder? Even if it worked (and historically, it never has), it would be wrong.
Life is valuable? Says who? Doesn't look like it, even if you remove humans from the causes of loss of life.
Further, the idea that a young person would destroy themselves for an elder seems the wrong way around. An elder should be expected to sacrifice for the young. Excepting the police, of course, who need to apprehend the criminal and try to stop him from maliciously killing an elder. (If you're speaking only of law/fire(maybe)/mil, etc, then never mind)
My comment was referring to the sad fact that many elderly just sit and vegetate due to health conditions. As I said: "World population is not dropping, so why make matters worse by extending the lives of people who would only become an added burden for society? Would their extended lives be worth living?"dissent wrote:
Hey, Shoku,
Just what is it that makes the young "more essential members of our society"? In some cultures, the elders have been valued for their wisdom, a less common virtue amongst the very young.
Just extending a life would not be a benefit to anyone. Many of our elderly contribute nothing to society, they only take from society. To be of value, that life extention must be a life with meaning, a life that contributes. Forcing people to live just for the sake of living would eventually create a civilization where the unproductive elderly would be the majority - unless the extention of life also included a rejuvination to the health most of us experience in yonger years . . . . .But then there's the problem of over-population again.
very good point. we'll make up our own rules on that when we get there, suffice to say that everyone should have their own rules, as will i.Krom wrote:So roid, what happens if your life doesn't belong to just you? It's easy to say your life is your own when you are single and have no dependants.
"but what about the kids left behind?"... The selfless and real universe says they die.
you gotta remember, the harshness of what i just said as well as what i said in my first post in this thread (the one you replied to) is how i feel the ultimate cold truths of the universe are. It does not care about your religion, nation, laws, ideals, or how cute and/or innocent you are. I don't like the cold universe model, but that doesn't make it any less reality.
Basically, what i said there is a cold base logic that silently i hold inside as "my worldview". Any beliefs i hold outside of that are subjective, as such i have no right to demand or force them on anyone else. No matter how hard you believe your morals are superior and you are "protecting me from myself"... in my eyes you will always have no real authority over the matter. only might.
to answer properly the question "but what about the kids left behind?":
My subjective view is that they should have been cared for. But, it's outof my hands, it technically always was, i can't force the kids into anything but i will offer my hand - they have to trust to survive. They will be cared for by society. God forbid they are so untrusting that they refuse care (refer to my previous post), as they do have the right - that whole cycle of suicide IS capable of repeating.
Not that religion has anything unsubjective to offer to stop such a cycle either - other than by telling people that it ISN'T subjective. But i see that as lying, not to mention that in this day and age of multiculturalism and many conflicting religious beliefs - it seems rather nieve and arrogant to hold a "my religion is right and yours is wrong" view so strongly that you try to force others to follow your beliefs.
Great, in that case I can kill you and you can't say it's wrong because I can simply say that it was part of my "right" to kill you, and since everyone's "right" is different and relative, it's ok!Phoenix Red wrote:There is no objective right and there is no objective value.
Sorry, but this doesn't work. At some point people have to lay down the law. There IS such a thing as absolute right and wrong.
I might also add that I think this discussion is moot. It will probably be over 500 years before humans figure out how to extend their lives to an average lifespan of 100, much less get any farther than that.
ok, so this is asking about your hierarchy of values - how you value various rights and responsabilitys of Individuals and Society.
ie: Do you believe an Individual can OWE it to society to kill himself against his will for the good of the society. Or REFRAIN from killing himself for the good of society.
It's about what values you hold above others. That's why i wrote about Suicide, being the "Property of Society", and Subjective religious Beliefs. They are all relevant to how you will answer.
ie: Do you believe an Individual can OWE it to society to kill himself against his will for the good of the society. Or REFRAIN from killing himself for the good of society.
It's about what values you hold above others. That's why i wrote about Suicide, being the "Property of Society", and Subjective religious Beliefs. They are all relevant to how you will answer.
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4689
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
An individual owes nothing to society. You give what you want voluntarily in roder to get what you want out of it.
If someone wants to go, they'll go. There'll be no stopping them. Most 'suicides' are not real attempts at all. (just like most attempts to quit smoking are merely token gestures). Those who are serious do it, period. the 'law' is a joke. (The fact that the government owns your body is another discussion)
If someone with kids commits suicide, they shouldn't have had kids in the first place, and the kids are probably better off not having a parent like that anyway. Sucks for them to have to go through today's welfare system, though(But which would be worse?). More shining examples of the necessity of selective breeding.
If someone wants to go, they'll go. There'll be no stopping them. Most 'suicides' are not real attempts at all. (just like most attempts to quit smoking are merely token gestures). Those who are serious do it, period. the 'law' is a joke. (The fact that the government owns your body is another discussion)
If someone with kids commits suicide, they shouldn't have had kids in the first place, and the kids are probably better off not having a parent like that anyway. Sucks for them to have to go through today's welfare system, though(But which would be worse?). More shining examples of the necessity of selective breeding.
-
Phoenix Red
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 2:01 am
You're refusing to think here. The fact that it is not OBJECTIVELY wrong for you to kill me does not mean it won't piss off enough people that they do something about it, like toss you in a jail cell.Stryker wrote:Great, in that case I can kill you and you can't say it's wrong because I can simply say that it was part of my "right" to kill you, and since everyone's "right" is different and relative, it's ok!Phoenix Red wrote:There is no objective right and there is no objective value.
Sorry, but this doesn't work. At some point people have to lay down the law. There IS such a thing as absolute right and wrong.
I might also add that I think this discussion is moot. It will probably be over 500 years before humans figure out how to extend their lives to an average lifespan of 100, much less get any farther than that.
Does it suck for me if you want to kill me? Yes. Do I agree with your opinion that I should die? Circumstance dictates, but probably not. IS it WRONG from an unbiased, third party viewpoint? No. Senseless maybe, stupid maybe, tasteless probably, but not wrong.
-
SuperSheep
- DBB Benefactor
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Illinois
If one could be made immortal, suicide is the only thing left to the individual to end their life. They have had death by "natural causes" removed from their method of demise.
I am quite sure that if it was mandatory that immortal had to swear to not commit suicide, you wouldn't have a whole lot of people signing up.
As it stands, there are plenty of methods that mere mortals can die from and suicide is therefore a premature end.
As an immortal, suicide is the only option to end ones own life and therefore should be a "right". Otherwise, an immortal would need to seek out another to murder them, and that seems to me the greater of two evils by far.
I personally think immortality is on the whole, a foolish concept. Forever is a long, long, long, long time. So long, one could not possibly ever reach it. No one could actually live forever because forever simply doesn't occur. That being said, if one "could" approach forever, and not have the ability to kill themselves, that truly would suck a big one.
One possibility that would be quite frightening, and one which I wrote a short story about a long time ago, is being alive forever, but not being able to die.
The story was about a guy who wanted to live forever, so he went to an institute dedicated to bringing immortality to everyone, with the only catch being that they didn't have the means...yet.
So, he signs up, and gets frozen. Years pass and a solution is found. He is injected with a drug that causes him to be "immortal" (yes its science fiction), but at that exact moment, war breaks out, bombs fall, and he does not receive the last shot which would un-paralyze him.
So, the institute gets blown to bits, but he survives. The world is gone, he is the only one left. The only thing he can see besides the utter destruction is the syringe loaded with the agent to remove his paralysis lying on his chest.
Now, forever under those circumstances would truly suck, and I realize we all think forever would be a lot better than that, but what happens when the Universe swallows itself up again or dies in a cold death? What happens when there is no more light, no more stuff? What happens when all you have is yourself and the utter darkness which goes on forever in all directions, what if you simply couldn't kill yourself in this situation? Would you be any better than the paralyzed guy?
I am quite sure that if it was mandatory that immortal had to swear to not commit suicide, you wouldn't have a whole lot of people signing up.
As it stands, there are plenty of methods that mere mortals can die from and suicide is therefore a premature end.
As an immortal, suicide is the only option to end ones own life and therefore should be a "right". Otherwise, an immortal would need to seek out another to murder them, and that seems to me the greater of two evils by far.
I personally think immortality is on the whole, a foolish concept. Forever is a long, long, long, long time. So long, one could not possibly ever reach it. No one could actually live forever because forever simply doesn't occur. That being said, if one "could" approach forever, and not have the ability to kill themselves, that truly would suck a big one.
One possibility that would be quite frightening, and one which I wrote a short story about a long time ago, is being alive forever, but not being able to die.
The story was about a guy who wanted to live forever, so he went to an institute dedicated to bringing immortality to everyone, with the only catch being that they didn't have the means...yet.
So, he signs up, and gets frozen. Years pass and a solution is found. He is injected with a drug that causes him to be "immortal" (yes its science fiction), but at that exact moment, war breaks out, bombs fall, and he does not receive the last shot which would un-paralyze him.
So, the institute gets blown to bits, but he survives. The world is gone, he is the only one left. The only thing he can see besides the utter destruction is the syringe loaded with the agent to remove his paralysis lying on his chest.
Now, forever under those circumstances would truly suck, and I realize we all think forever would be a lot better than that, but what happens when the Universe swallows itself up again or dies in a cold death? What happens when there is no more light, no more stuff? What happens when all you have is yourself and the utter darkness which goes on forever in all directions, what if you simply couldn't kill yourself in this situation? Would you be any better than the paralyzed guy?
-
Mobius
- DBB_Master
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
- Contact:
The maxim "add life to years" is important here. Living to 200 if you can't see, feel or speak isn't a great existence.
Personally, I plan on living for at least 20,000 years, and if the universe turns out to be interesting enough, I might come back to watch Sol go into a Red Giant phase, and roast the Earth.
Most of us are stuck firmly in the 20th century mode of thinking in terms of immortality. But, the Singularity is coming, and it'll get here around 2050 - conveniently around the time I turn 85, and exactly when I'll be ready to get rid of this pretty poor excuse for a body.
I will probably spend the next 10 to 20 years (real time) inside a virtual world occupied by similarly "uploaded" people (Think "Matrix" but without the limits).
This period may extend to hundreds of years, depending on how interesting it is to live a virtual life. I anticipate spending at least a day a week as part of a "group mind", and I'll also pursue playing games quite heavily.
Once that period of time has passed, I'll have earned enough money to buy a half-decent android body, in almost the exact same image as my human body, except faster, stronger and with quite a few enhancements (daily backups etc). I might spend some time as a woman, to see what that feels like.
The next 100-200 years I intend to spend exploring the sciences: I'd like to be a geologist, a paleontologist, a surgeon, an architect and an evolutionary biologist. There are many other occupations and professions I would like to explore also.
Subsequent to this, I'll have enough money to invest in an Eagle-body and a Dolphin-body, and I intend to spend quite a bit of time flying round the globe, and swimming the world's oceans.
After that gets boring I'll have enough money to buy a small spacecraft of some sort, and intend to investigate the Solar System in some depth, spending some time on Mars, as well as the larger moons in the Jupiter and Saturnian systems.
After that - who knows? We're bound to have found extra-terrestrial life by then (or it will have found us first) and we'll either be in the happy process of wiping it out, or we'll be furiously figuring out how to.
Perhaps a small tour of the galaxy is called for, or a mission to the galactic core, to watch the giant black hole suck up suns.
Whatever eventuates, it's gonna be one helluva interesting, and stimulating time.
Personally, I plan on living for at least 20,000 years, and if the universe turns out to be interesting enough, I might come back to watch Sol go into a Red Giant phase, and roast the Earth.
Most of us are stuck firmly in the 20th century mode of thinking in terms of immortality. But, the Singularity is coming, and it'll get here around 2050 - conveniently around the time I turn 85, and exactly when I'll be ready to get rid of this pretty poor excuse for a body.
I will probably spend the next 10 to 20 years (real time) inside a virtual world occupied by similarly "uploaded" people (Think "Matrix" but without the limits).
This period may extend to hundreds of years, depending on how interesting it is to live a virtual life. I anticipate spending at least a day a week as part of a "group mind", and I'll also pursue playing games quite heavily.
Once that period of time has passed, I'll have earned enough money to buy a half-decent android body, in almost the exact same image as my human body, except faster, stronger and with quite a few enhancements (daily backups etc). I might spend some time as a woman, to see what that feels like.
The next 100-200 years I intend to spend exploring the sciences: I'd like to be a geologist, a paleontologist, a surgeon, an architect and an evolutionary biologist. There are many other occupations and professions I would like to explore also.
Subsequent to this, I'll have enough money to invest in an Eagle-body and a Dolphin-body, and I intend to spend quite a bit of time flying round the globe, and swimming the world's oceans.
After that gets boring I'll have enough money to buy a small spacecraft of some sort, and intend to investigate the Solar System in some depth, spending some time on Mars, as well as the larger moons in the Jupiter and Saturnian systems.
After that - who knows? We're bound to have found extra-terrestrial life by then (or it will have found us first) and we'll either be in the happy process of wiping it out, or we'll be furiously figuring out how to.
Perhaps a small tour of the galaxy is called for, or a mission to the galactic core, to watch the giant black hole suck up suns.
Whatever eventuates, it's gonna be one helluva interesting, and stimulating time.
Perhaps a benefit of the helpless elderly is to teach compassion to the capable... just a thought. And they don't have to do anything at all to teach us this.Shoku wrote:My comment was referring to the sad fact that many elderly just sit and vegetate due to health conditions.
Maybe; maybe not.Shoku wrote:Just extending a life would not be a benefit to anyone.
You're tossing the word "many" around like you have the statistics to back it up. Do you? I can certainly agree this is true for "some".Shoku wrote:Many of our elderly contribute nothing to society, they only take from society. To be of value, that life extention must be a life with meaning, a life that contributes.
Then there's the question of meaning; who gets to decide what that is. Societies disagree.
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4689
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
