Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Would You Choose Immortality?
After reading Jon Gabriel’s recent piece regarding funerals, it occurred to me that ever since I learned about mortality (at about age four), I’ve wanted absolutely nothing to do with it. I’ve kept in shape and have always enjoyed lots of butter (I knew it was good for me before Time announced it!). But I still know that, in the end, death is a place where we are all equal.
Science and technology will eventually find a way for people to live a very long time, if not “forever.” The first to benefit will be the very wealthy, but the technology will presumably become accessible to the masses with time. Or will it? Should it? If you were given the choice to live 1,000 years in good health or die a natural death at 90, which would you choose? And what if the only choices were natural death or Highlander-style immortality?
Published in General
Perhaps the most terrifying concept in the horror genre is the idea of inescapable immortality. One of the most frightening things I ever heard was, of all places, on the Wonder Woman TV show. There was a man who had been made immortal, without his consent, by a mad scientist. The mad scientist taunted the immortal man by telling him that when the world ended, he would still be there, alone.
Fortunately in real life, we have a Second Law of Thermodynamics. People tend to think of the Second Law as a depressing reality, like death, but I think it’s a good thing it’s there. I think there is a limit to how much suffering we will have to endure in this universe, because eventually the usable energy runs out.
NOTE: I wrote these posts before I read all the other posts. I looks like others had similar ideas.
I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most profitable explanation is that I was made for another world. — C. S. Lewis
Has this world been so kind to you that you should leave with regret? There are better things ahead than any we leave behind. — C.S. Lewis
Matty Van, I’d give you immortal likes for this comment. Excellent!
Mormons believe there are at least 4 individuals walking among us who have quasi- immortality. One is the apostle John the beloved who Jesus said should live until his second coming. The other 3 are disciples of Christ who lived in Meso America when Christ was resurrected. Their purpose in living until the second coming was because they desired to bring souls unto Christ.
I say quasi-immortal because even though their bodies were changed they are not the same as resurrected bodies, which they will receive at the second coming. The change meant that not only would they not be subject to death but that they would also not be subject to pain or sorrow or temptation, which is the only way I would desire immortality.
No thanks to Highlander style “immortality.” The median lifespan of a Highlander immortal, from the time the character is introduced to the time he dies from decapitation, is about 27 minutes (not counting commercials).
By the way, about the 1,000 year time frame, that may not be long enough for Cubs fans.
Ouch! Good point. Sign me up for three million years.
The consensus always seems to be that immortality breeds sadness. Though I wonder if that is because we always assume the immortal will be alone. It may be that given a large enough group of immortals things would not be so bad. We certainly would change our expectations about life and alter our priorities, but maybe that would make us better people. The question is how much do you think you would regret spending 1000 years playing with your kids or hanging out with your parents and friends. I don’t know if ennui would eventually set in, but I think it would take a long time.
To everyone’s stunned surprise, my elderly father-in-law, who apparently preached the gospel of advanced care directives for decades, refused to sign one upon entering a care facility. He explained that only upon the threshold of death did he gain the perspective that every second counts, and he wanted as many as possible. On the other hand, after my hale and heartyLithuanian-born grandmother received a letter from the old country informing her that her baby brother had died, she simply said, “I’m ready to go now”, and she was gone within 6 months. She had outlived everyone she left behind, and I suppose she felt it was time to join them. Immortality would be intolerable if it meant watching those I love die before me.
While I get the arguments that immortality would be unbearable because you would outlive everyone you care about, it should be noted, that if you remained youthful and healthy, this concern is mitigated, as you can start over.
Most people do not give up on life when tragedies such as their spouse dying young hit them. They eventually move on, as they have time to start over.
Under the “highlander” scenario, you have the time and ability to start over.
Did you follow the link I posted?
It’s not just about outliving your loved ones. It’s about outliving the human race as you know it, outliving the Sun and the Planet Earth, and outliving the Universe itself …
… and that’s assuming you don’t get stuck under a rockslide for centuries, or whatever.
The appeal of going to Heaven isn’t merely everlasting life, but everlasting life in a Universe where entropy does not apply.
My wife’s former mother-in-law (who’s son died leaving my wife a widow) lived to 105. She lived with some comfort but in her last year things began to change. Her taste buds went south. Her ability to drive stopped. She was afraid. Her sister, in her late 90s, had Alzheimers. Other than that she had no one who had experienced what she had experienced going back through the day. She decided that she was ready. It was a regular down hill process from there. Her oldest friends were in their 80s, ergo comparative youths.
Now if a lot of people who experienced the same things are around, it will make for a more lively conversation. I remember Ike and Jack Kennedy and the Civil Rights Movement and the space race and famous names.
I remember Nam, in particular I Corps, and Da Nang and Hue and Camp Carroll and places that many people have no idea about.
I also miss people who have died, such as my parents. Heaven knows I’d like to see them again, hopefully together in a place without tears.
Misthiocracy,
I keep referencing “highlander” style immortality. You can still die, but your not aging or getting sick. You don’t outlive the human race.
The main attraction of immortality would be getting to see things, meet people, and do things you wouldn’t be able to otherwise. I have many friends I’ve lost touch with, but I’ve made new ones. Of course, if another 1000 years is good, another 10000 years would be even better. There’s no obvious cutoff point that I can see, assuming you remained vital and active all along. Whatever time you have, you have to make the most of it.
Who works? Who provides for this limited immortality? Who doesn’t get born so that whatever is created stretches for those who have chosen to extend their lives as far as possible? Who retains a job, stifling the attempts of those younger, to strive and achieve something in their own turn?
Should we expect to be decanted from a tube like Brave New World?
If you can die, you are mortal. Q.E.D.
There are different things that some call “Immortality.” The TV Tropes link covered most of them. But to be precise, there is a difference between immortality and eternal youth, as Tithonos figured out. In my books, characters are called “Eternals” who have extended life, although that is actually a shortening of “eternal youths,” since they can and do die, they just look twenty-to twenty-five for most of their lives.
And of course, science fiction has addressed all of these questions a thousand times and come up with different answers depending on the author. One of the many reasons I love sci-fi is the philosophical depth.
If I’m alive and still able to feed myself, I want to keep living. Maybe I’m a (more) doddering fool, but I love life. I want to see how things turn out. I want to help fix things if they go wrong. I want to explore. I want to go to Mars, and the nearest star. I can’t really imagine anyone thinking differently, but I’ve talked to too many who do to think they don’t exist.
Personally, I don’t like a cult of death. I understand the acceptance of death and facing death rationally and stoically, but if given the option to avoid it then I will at any moral cost.
I repeat, if you can die, you are mortal. Q.E.D.
Next you’ll be telling me that words mean things.
Part of a woman’s life the sure knowledge that she has a precious few years to produce children, and then it’s all over, forever. Those kids are thus uniquely precious, and color our view. If humanity was offered the ability to stay vital, and be able to reproduce indefinitely, it would change the equation in interesting ways.
That’s not how 6’2″ laid out the hypothetical strictly speaking. Most words are not used in the literal fashion you suggest. Vampires are almost always refereed to as immortal in fiction, though they are frequently being killed.
Words are also elastic, frequently carrying nuance.
Interestingly, our nearest relatives (Bonobos, chimps, etc.) do not have menopause. They can keep producing children into old age.
And abused and created anew because people no longer remember the original word or think its definition more limited. Such is the case with “incite.” Does incite only apply to bad things, such as riots? Of course not. One can incite good behavior as well. Do any of the people who are now using the superfluous neologism “incentivize” know this? Apparently not.
My grandma talked as if she would be passing any minute for the last 10 years of her life, after her husband died.
She and all of her elderly friends sought out the obituaries in the newspaper every day to look for people they knew, because deaths at that age are so frequent. On the other hand, my parents are currently dealing with as many funerals and sad wishes because they interact with more people than my grandma did. The more people you treasure, the more you can lose.
I took your initial prompt to mean “if everyone lived a thousand years.” In that case, I doubt life would be much different than it is today. If 50 years doesn’t bore you, why would 150? If 80 years doesn’t depress you, why would 800? Ultimately, individual personalities are inclined to happiness or unhappiness regardless of the circumstances. The present world includes limitless things which can either please or dismay.
From a biological perspective, there’s a logical reason why nature doesn’t favor immortality (or at least, immunity to death from old age). Fecundity is much more powerful than longevity for continuing a genetic legacy. If a woman lives a thousand years but has no offspring, her genes also survive for a thousand years. But if another woman lives only 60 years, but has offspring, in a thousand years she might have dozens of descendents. A woman with longevity who also has offspring might have an even larger genetic legacy, but having one or two more offspring would be just as effective as living longer.
That’s fair. I think economics helps make sense of this. If I had unlimited resources, I would choose to live as long as I could and have as many children as I could. Since resources are limited, I would have to choose between spending wealth on myself (I guess to be immortal, if that were available), or to spend it on my children. I think if I could choose to live longer, or have more children, or let my children live longer, I would choose from the latter two.
The appalling state of “big education” is for another thread. I’m with Frank on this one. Even linguistic giants like Charles Harrington Elster, will admit defeat in the face of common usage.
I am a Churchillian when it comes to admitting defeat.