4 ms·

Do you want to live forever? In a world where everyone lives forever? I'm pretty sure most people will have had enough after the first million or so years. Som

by nicky0 12y ago

Do you want to live forever? In a world where everyone lives forever? I'm pretty sure most people will have had enough after the first million or so years. Someone must have written sci-fi of this.

Ntrails 12y ago
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html A brilliant short story by asminov also briefly touches living forever and running out of space as it were.
Intermernet 12y ago
I'd like to be able to choose when I die.
- eidyia 12y ago
  You already do, but you also have a very strict deadline
- ramanan 12y ago
  and what number would you choose ? waitbutwhy had an interesting discussion on this a few weeks back: http://waitbutwhy.com/table/how-long-would-you-live-if-you-could-choose-any-number-of-years http://waitbutwhy.com/table/how-long-would-you-live-if-you-c...
  - placebo 12y ago
    Thanks for the link. I think this is a fascinating question.
simonh 12y ago
In Ian Banks Culture novels, the post-scarcity super-advanced civilization has lifespans of around 350 years (IIRC). They could be longer, but don't for cultural and social reasons. With Culture stories though, I'm never quite sure if Culture society has genuinely agreed on it's conventions freely, or if they are the result of subtle manipulation by the Minds (hyper-intelligent AIs that run the ships and habitats that host the Culture's biological population). For me if a population of immortals means a population without children I'm not sure it's such a great idea. I'm concerned about intellectual, cultural and technological ossification and ultimately degeneration without a continually renewing population. From a moral point of view, I don't buy the idea that death is something horrific to be avoided at all costs. Historically it's generally been accepted that there are things worth dying for, and countless throngs have sacrificed their lives, or at least willingly risked them, for causes they believed in. I'm specifically reminded of the case of a father a few years back that leaped in front of a lorry to push a child to safety, obviously knowing that he was sacrificing his own life to do so. Human life is precious and valuable, but not infinitely so and it's not obvious to me that an existing life is necessarily more valuable than a potential new one. I don't expect it will be politicaly possible or desirable to suppress life extending treatments and I don't really have any idea how this will all play out, but for me it's not a foregone conclusion that a future in which it is normal to indefinitely extend life is an ideal one.
- humanfromearth 12y ago
  People could have opted for indefinite life-span if they so chose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture#Death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture#Death They had lots of children, overpopulation was not a problem because of huge habitats that hosted billions of individuals (and that were built with relative ease - The Player of Games). Also I don't agree with the intellectual degradation argument, it's just silly in the Culture AGI context. Whatever the value of life I think it's best for the individual to decide what to do with it. Most would probably euthanasiate after a while anyway. I would very much prefer suicide than a random age related problem, but I don't really have a choice do I?
cubancigar11 12y ago
I think the worst part of being immortal will be having to deal with so many old people who will berate you for 'not growing up'.
sbalea 12y ago
Peter Hamilton's Commonwealth Saga has a pretty good treatment of the subject. His society has rejuvenation treatments that take care of aging bodies as well as artificial memory/personality backups. You age, you go through a rejuve, you die of unnatural causes, your insurance grows you a clone body and dumps your memories in from backup. Pretty interesting consequences. They also have wormhole technology and a budding star empire, so population expansion is not really an issue.

by nicky0 12y ago

Do you want to live forever? In a world where everyone lives forever? I'm pretty sure most people will have had enough after the first million or so years. Someone must have written sci-fi of this.

Ntrails 12y ago

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html A brilliant short story by asminov also briefly touches living forever and running out of space as it were.

Intermernet 12y ago

I'd like to be able to choose when I die.

eidyia 12y ago
You already do, but you also have a very strict deadline
ramanan 12y ago
and what number would you choose ? waitbutwhy had an interesting discussion on this a few weeks back: http://waitbutwhy.com/table/how-long-would-you-live-if-you-could-choose-any-number-of-years http://waitbutwhy.com/table/how-long-would-you-live-if-you-c...
- placebo 12y ago
  Thanks for the link. I think this is a fascinating question.

simonh 12y ago

In Ian Banks Culture novels, the post-scarcity super-advanced civilization has lifespans of around 350 years (IIRC). They could be longer, but don't for cultural and social reasons. With Culture stories though, I'm never quite sure if Culture society has genuinely agreed on it's conventions freely, or if they are the result of subtle manipulation by the Minds (hyper-intelligent AIs that run the ships and habitats that host the Culture's biological population). For me if a population of immortals means a population without children I'm not sure it's such a great idea. I'm concerned about intellectual, cultural and technological ossification and ultimately degeneration without a continually renewing population. From a moral point of view, I don't buy the idea that death is something horrific to be avoided at all costs. Historically it's generally been accepted that there are things worth dying for, and countless throngs have sacrificed their lives, or at least willingly risked them, for causes they believed in. I'm specifically reminded of the case of a father a few years back that leaped in front of a lorry to push a child to safety, obviously knowing that he was sacrificing his own life to do so. Human life is precious and valuable, but not infinitely so and it's not obvious to me that an existing life is necessarily more valuable than a potential new one. I don't expect it will be politicaly possible or desirable to suppress life extending treatments and I don't really have any idea how this will all play out, but for me it's not a foregone conclusion that a future in which it is normal to indefinitely extend life is an ideal one.

humanfromearth 12y ago
People could have opted for indefinite life-span if they so chose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture#Death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture#Death They had lots of children, overpopulation was not a problem because of huge habitats that hosted billions of individuals (and that were built with relative ease - The Player of Games). Also I don't agree with the intellectual degradation argument, it's just silly in the Culture AGI context. Whatever the value of life I think it's best for the individual to decide what to do with it. Most would probably euthanasiate after a while anyway. I would very much prefer suicide than a random age related problem, but I don't really have a choice do I?

cubancigar11 12y ago

I think the worst part of being immortal will be having to deal with so many old people who will berate you for 'not growing up'.

sbalea 12y ago

Peter Hamilton's Commonwealth Saga has a pretty good treatment of the subject. His society has rejuvenation treatments that take care of aging bodies as well as artificial memory/personality backups. You age, you go through a rejuve, you die of unnatural causes, your insurance grows you a clone body and dumps your memories in from backup. Pretty interesting consequences. They also have wormhole technology and a budding star empire, so population expansion is not really an issue.