Comment by arter45
1 day ago
I'm not against scientific research per se or living a bit more but... is immortality (or living for, say, 200 years or more) really something we should strive for?
Many aspects of human society assume, one way or another, that our life expectancy is fairly limited. From politics (even absolute monarchs or dictators eventually die), to economics (think about retirement, for example), demographics (if everyone is immortal and everyone keeps having children, what happens?), even psychology ("everything passes").
Are we willing to throw these implications away? What would be the purpose?
> Many aspects of human society assume, one way or another, that our life expectancy is fairly limited
Assumptions can change. Each of our technological shifts was more upending than longer healthspans would be—most of the West is already a gerontocracy.
> What would be the purpose?
To not die horribly.
That’s throwing the baby with the bathwater, there’s hundreds ways to die not horribly. And for an "immortal" (as in "not-aging"), there’s still ways to die horribly.
Life is more beautiful when you live it for its experiences, not for the fear of loosing it.
> throwing the baby with the bathwater, there’s hundreds ways to die not horribly
The baby in your analogy being aging?
> there’s still ways to die horribly
Sure. The purpose would be remove a common cause of dying horribly.
(And in no world with longevity treatments would it be mandatory. People and populations who like aging and Alzheimer’s can keep partying like it’s 2025.)
> Assumptions can change. Each of our technological shifts was more upending than longer healthspans would be—most of the West is already a gerontocracy.
Sure but is gerontocracy a good thing, then? I’m not against older people, but shifting the whole demographic towards them is not looking good for retirement, social constructs, and more. Immortality would bring this even further, especially when meant literally.
> > What would be the purpose? To not die horribly.
Well ok, but even if you can’t die horribly (ignoring murders,…) you can still suffer horribly, physically or otherwise, for a variety of reasons. Starving, rape, physical and psychological abuse, painful diseases even if non lethal,… still exist regardless of immortality. It’s not like immortal people are necessarily happy or good.
> shifting the whole demographic towards them is not looking good for retirement, social constructs, and more
I'm genuinely not seeing the problem. Longer lives means more productive lives. (A massive fraction of healthcare costs are related to obesity and aging. A minority of medicine is in trauma.)
> Immortality would bring this even further, especially when meant literally
We don't have a path to entropy-defying immortality. Not aging doesn't mean literal immortality.
> you can still suffer horribly, physically or otherwise, for a variety of reasons
The fact that you're levying this argument should seal the case. It's an argument that can be made against anything good.
2 replies →