That's not my point. My point is why do you want to live forever?
Is anyone on this forum so important that they deserve to live for 10,000 years, when the entirety of human civilization which made that possible is now dead? Nobody is that important or has that much to offer to the world. It's purely an ego driven thing based on us as individuals. I'm not assigning moral right and wrong to it, I'm just saying it's irrationally ego driven and it can't be fully embraced without a lack of empathy. If you can live for 150 years and not get worn down by the things people do to each other, more power to you.
Is there a threshold of years when the wish to live for X years change from normal to irrationally ego driven? Or are you asserting that any wish to live is irrationally ego driven? Is there a quanlitative or kind difference, under your view, for someone wishing to live 50, 500 or 5000 years?
Or to put it in plain words and as I can't find a way to make it less confusing: why isn't your position equivalent to advocating for everyone to kill themselves (or at the least, not caring at all whether they live or die)
Humans have natural lifespans. We've had very few people live to be older than 120. There's no reason to not naturally extend your life if you can, but I'm not sure we'll find that experience all that enjoyable as individuals (or it will require a disconnect to do so) and it isn't obvious there is any benefit to society from it (imagine Howard Hughes still directing his empire from his hotel penthouse today).
It's a natural ego driven thing to want to survive, but it is still driven by ego.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Natural lifespan is a bit of a misnomer to describe our current lifespan though, seeing all the thing modern medicine does. I didn't realize how much biopsy would creep me out until I have it done, not to mention all kind of surgeries we do nowadays.
I really don't understand your point either. Imagine Srinivasa Ramanujan living to be 500 years old rather than 32, or Leonardo Da Vinci still being alive today -- their contributions to society would be immense.
We've been seeking to and succeeding at extending our natural lifespans since forever. The only sensible argument against it is that the planet would eventually be overcrowded, assuming we don't become interplanetary any time soon.
Most people aren't da Vinci and even if they were there's no guarantee (or likelihood) those artists could do that for any extended period of time. Picasso was Picasso because he was not da Vinci (well and a million other reasons, but just a comparison). Maybe da Vinci gets stuck in his views and doesn't have anything to offer as of 1900 except a shell of himself. Or, maybe da Vinci gets really bored after 300 years. What else does he have to prove?
What I'm trying to say is that all progress has occurred within our now millenia old system of relatively short lifespans. It means that within 150 years, societies can completely change because new individuals and experiences have to take over. Even the ancients saw death as a kind of leveler. We all die, even the mighty don't get to take anything with them.
Does that happen if we change that equation? Maybe it doesn't matter because people are good at adapting, but there's still a possibility it isn't all sunshine.
Nobody deserves anything. If humans can survive forever, most will (BTW I‘ve read somewhere that your half-life would still be 600 years or so due to serious accidents). Not WANTING to survive as long as possible is IMO pathological thinking. Sure, there are reasons why you would rather not have humans live longer.. but why not long for it?
Also, if you live forever, almost everybody will be able to make a lasting impact on society, sooner or later.
>Why do you want to live forever?
I'm not sure why this is a question. Barring inhumane levels of pain (emotional or physical), living is always preferable to death.
>Nobody is that important or has that much to offer to the world
Agree, we are all dust in the wind etc, etc. But why does that matter? Should I decide to stop living at 27 because my trajectory means I won't accomplish anything with my life?
Personally, the strongest motivator to live as long as possible is to experience as much "existence" as possible. My lifetime is constricted to the 21st century right now and that means I will never experience humanity's future. Sure, it will happen regardless whether I'm there to experience it, but that won't matter to me, I'll be dead.
If wanting to experience life is selfish, then I'm sorry for being born (not directed at you, just in general).
My own perspective (which I can already tell you'll likely disagree with) is that I want to live forever to remove the burden of having to choose only 1 to 2 more major experiences in my life (I'm 52).
As an example I leaned Japanese. To do so I moved to Japan at 33. My experience there tells me if I want to learn Chinese and actually remember it I need to move to China for 6-8 years. Given I only have 20-30 years left and probably less in pure freedom of movement (meaning my body will get old and limit where I live and what I can do), then ATM I only get to choose 1, 2 or 3 more major things to do with my life. If I could live forever I'd choose to do all of them knowing I have plenty of time left. I'd spend 8+ years in China. Maybe 6+ years in Germany and 6+ in France and 6+ in Italy and 6+ in Spain and a few in South American countries and then others. I'd go back to school and learn various topics spending several years in each.
I don't agree with your assertion wanting to live a long long time has anything to do with ego. People used to only live to an average of 30. Today I saw a program on Japanese TV showing they have 60000 people over 100 years old. They showed several having productive lives, some were still running stores. One was a hairdresser. She still loved meeting and talking to people while cutting their hair. She was 102. The current stats say that 60k number will be 120k in only 3 more years.
What does the fact the people in the past died have anything to do with anything? People in the past died of all kinds of diseases so people now are ego driven to use the tech that prevents those diseases? I also see no relation to empathy. In fact the older I get the more empathy I seem to have.
I don't agree with your assertion wanting to live a long long time has anything to do with ego.
It's the definition of ego: a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
It's not a moral argument, it's the recognition that your desire to live all of those lives is an egotistical thing (this is not a judgment).
deserve
I'm not assigning moral right and wrong to it
That's the problem, clearly you are when you use that first word.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
> That's not my point. My point is why do you want to live forever?
From an emotional point of view, I do not want my parents to die.
They're in 70s, but I think that the time they have left is too short. I'd like them to live to see their 80s, their 100s, their 200s. I would like them to be there in 20 years when the last of my children graduate university. I would like them to see their grandchildren get married, and celebrate the birth of their great grand children.
I do not want to see my friends die. I have been with them since we were 4 years old, and I'd like to celebrate life with them for more than the 30 years have left according to actuarial charts.
I do not want my mentors to die. They're already in retirement homes, but they have so much more to experience, but many won't see their life's work come to fruition.
I would like everyone I know to live to see their 300th birthday, and I would like to be there with them.
Is that forever? No.
Forever may be too long, but 70 years upon this earth is too short by far. If living to see 500 healthy years is within the grasp of our technology, we should seize upon it.
I do not think this view is egotistical, or selfish. A world where no one dies except by accident or deliberate choice would be a much better world than what we have today.
Too often 'live forever' posts focus on the greats of history, theorising what would happen if they lived longer... but I challenge you to think of it in a more personal respect. Do you want your friends and family to die when they do not want to?
You're kind of missing the point. If people lived 500 years it still wouldn't be enought. We're biologically programmed to want more.
Knowing there's a time limit, you would want to extend it. Knowing there's no time limit, everything would stop having any meaning. Why would you get married and have kids if you could have it 100 years later?
> You're kind of missing the point.
I had thought the point was answering "why would you want to live forever?" so I gave it my best shot. :)
> Why would you get married
and have kids if you could have it 100 years later?
Because you get the enjoyment of marriage and an expanded family now.
Frankly, speaking, I cannot believe people would be willing to delay satisfaction for 100s of years, merely because they are immortal.
But what if you're right? Well then...
If in fact living past 200 causes everything to be meaningless, we'll likely just find out people waste away from old age depression, and the point of the debate is moot.
If immortals stop caring about life because it is long lasting, we'll just find the first members of the immortal generation do worse than their mortal peers in all respects.
The question of "how much life is too much life" is something I would rather find out through primary research on people who are 500 or more years old, instead of debating in the hypothetical.
Practically though, I doubt immortality is within the grasp of this current generation. Research into 'immortality' is just using forever as an ideal---not as an expectation of what will really be delivered upon.
Extending life by a few more decades is a valid goal for our generation.
> Is anyone on this forum so important that they deserve to live for 10,000 years
Nobody is important and nobody deserves anything. There's no outside force making decisions about who is allowed to have what. You get what you figure out how to get and you keep it as long as you figure out how to keep it.
> It's purely an ego driven thing based on us as individuals.
But assigning yourself to be the arbiter of who is or isn't "important" enough to "deserve" an extended lifespan isn't ego-driven?
> If you can live for 150 years and not get worn down by the things people do to each other, more power to you.
If you're going to let your own mood be dictated by the never-ending stream of terrible things in the world, I'd be surprised if you could make it through even a a normal lifetime. There's a lot of wonderful things in the world too. Why ignore those?
But assigning yourself to be the arbiter of who is or isn't "important" enough to "deserve" an extended lifespan isn't ego-driven?
I realize I'm not important. My opinion that ultimately no individual is especially important is not based out of ego but a recognition that there's been like 10 billion of us and there will be more. But if you want it, have at it; maybe just consider why you want it.
If you're going to let your own mood be dictated by the never-ending stream of terrible things in the world, I'd be surprised if you could make it through even a a normal lifetime. There's a lot of wonderful things in the world too. Why ignore those?
That's what keeps me going.
Many people are coming from the point of view that immortality would be spread out to everyone---so we won't be alone.
However, if only one person can be immortal and for instance it's you Aaron... then you will become important out of virtue of your status. In a ten thousand years, you might be the only remaining record of the 21st century.
Thank you. It seems like a lot of people try to reason in an egoless manner, but all they end up doing is transferring their ego-driven hang-ups onto their concept of a universal objective viewpoint.
I want to live longer because I want to see amazing tech. I imagine rhis is one of the primary reasons that people want a longer lifespan.
Beyond that, I want to live long enough to go on interplanetary and/or interstellar voyages. My desire to experience the marvels and mysteries of the universe are irrespective of humanity's conditions, whether we are facing an apocalypse or living in a global golden age.
How about a limit argument then?
Ok if not 10,000 years, why not 500? Still too much? Another 50 then? At what point does this argument tell me I should just kill myself right now because I don't "deserve" to live any longer?
It seems to me that you've chosen an arbitrary number (current average lifespan) and somehow chosen that to be "fair" and that living any longer is "selfish" and "ego driven".
In the absence of modern medicine we might live on average for 50 years. Is living that extra 30 years I might get from technology also selfish?
Hypothetically, if everyone can live forever if they want, is it ok then?