Lately I've been reading Plato/Socrates for the umpteenpth time and again, they've got me kind of looking forward to checking out. I also like the lyrics of that song If We Were Vampires:

"If we were vampires and death was a joke
We'd go out on the sidewalk and smoke
And laugh at all the lovers and their plans
I wouldn't feel the need to hold your hand
Maybe time running out is a gift
I'll work hard 'til the end of my shift . . ."
Jason Isbell

And who am I to deprive the universe of that perception of me dying, unless or course the universe is somehow entertained by my exciting life (sarcasm).

I would probably give the pill to someone who wanted it more than me. Maybe an enemy.

Would you take it? — darthbarracuda

No. Because soon or later everything ends. This is not supposed to be a negative feeling but a motivational one. We are limited creatures who works against time. I guess this is why it is so worthy. When we already accepted we were born to die I guess we are ready to focus in beautiful things. I will never change this criteria for being immortal I think that even being immortal is quite selfish. Imagine how painful could be live permanently while your family and friends are there dying near you... I wish I never experienced this situation.

.

It seems to me that life is much more enjoyable and less burdensome when one is not afraid of when it may end. — darthbarracuda

Agreed. Good quote :100: :cheer:

Interesting subject; and I agree, death is not necessarily bad. It is a necessary aspect of evolution that previous generations make way for subsequent generations; personally, my prime concern is that dying doesn't hurt. My complaint is not with death per se - but rather with the extent of an average human life span. It's neither here nor there. I'm just about getting myself together psychologically, becoming a layered, complex individual who knows some stuff - and my body starts to fall apart. It's not fair.

We should be looking toward living much longer and healthier lives; even while that has enormous resource implications, and raises questions of inter-generational justice - it would be a very different world were we forced to solve that problem. I do think it is possible to solve it, and we would have to solve it were people longer lived.

As for immortality, no! Not if it were actual immortality - I would not want that. Some part of me finds it attractive, but I've run the numbers and they don't look good. A thousand years? Great. I'd love to live a thousand years. But eternity? Millions and billions? Even I'd get sick of me!

I don't think I would, honestly. There's only so much the world can offer before boredom overtakes us. Though I think it would be interesting to have a button I could press to go whenever I want if I did take the pill

I would take the pill as long as its "immortality" does not prevent me from killing myself (i.e. voluntarily refusing to regenerate, or recuperate from fatally traumatic injury); otherwise, no, because I wouldn't want to be condemned to existing "forever" in a flesh sarcophagus.

I think I would prefer a pause button then something that stops me dying. Because there are moments when I just wish I had extra time to do everything and meet everyone I want to on that given day. Other slow boring days could be fast forwarded to balance the books.
Or maybe a pill that allows you to stay up with no sleep for a day or two at a time with no side effects. Because though I love sleep sometimes I could do without it to get some valuable alone/me time to read or study of philosophise.

The issue would be that my use of this magic pill would have to be inherently selfish for it to give me an advantage over standard life because if everyone could stay up at night you can bet on it that the working week would be extended. It’s all relative

Agreed.

Yes, in this scenario I was imagining that while the pill would give you immortality, you could still voluntarily die if you chose to.

It seems to me that life is much more enjoyable and less burdensome when one is not afraid of when it may end. — darthbarracuda

The vampire novels of Anne Rice explore the implications and downsides of eternal youth. In the beginning, the novels portray the condition as romantic and erotic. By the end, the novels feature an unending procession of mindless savagery and nihilism.

The vampire novels of Anne Rice explore the implications and downsides of eternal youth. In the beginning, the novels portray the condition as romantic and erotic. By the end, the novels feature an unending procession of mindless savagery and nihilism. — fishfry

Tolkien's elves are an alternative idea to this.

I would want it. Not to necessarily use it immediately, but to open the pill and find out what's inside. I feel like my curiosity would shove me in that direction first. What if it was made out of newborn's foreskins? Jokes aside, whether I would take it or not, I'm not sure. I felt really depressed when my cat, that's been with me since I was 4 died. I can't really imagine what it'd be like if I outlived all my friends and family.

If there were enough for my friends and family, I'm sure I would. Death would be reduced to either a choice or an accident and I don't see anything wrong with that. I have an uneasy feeling that we will see mental dysfunction as we rack in the time though. I feel like we would reach a point where our memories cut off heavily after we accumulate too much memory, like a hard drive that has it's storage space completely full.

It seems to me that life is much more enjoyable and less burdensome when one is not afraid of when it may end. — darthbarracuda

Personality. The reverse may be true too. Life is not as enjoyable when there is no risk. The prospect of death intensifies the appreciation of life

If the pill were to guarantee a sickness free 90 years I might be interested. Immortality, no thanks. It sounds really boring.

I would not take the pill. Death makes life worth living.

Quoting the same part @Tom Storm did, because I think it's the crux:

It seems to me that life is much more enjoyable and less burdensome when one is not afraid of when it may end. — darthbarracuda

I agree, but what's weird about this quote is either side - pro-pill, anti-pill - might say the same thing in support of their position. The quote's mercenary - it can be enlisted in service of either cause.

Pro-PIll: If life is more enjoyable when you're not afraid of when it might end - then take the pill, and rid yourself of that fear. Once you've taken the pill, you are in full control of the moment of your death. You're free of the fear of grim reaper death birds suddenly swooping. Now you can enjoy life in peace.

Anti-Pill: In taking the pill, you're availing yourself of a sort of miraculous intercession : An angel in pill form has freed you from the Worst Eventuality. But, if the pill's effects were somehow reversed, you'd be thrown back upon your old fear. You haven't gotten rid of your fear exactly, you've just been granted a special dispensation.


I'm in the non-pill camp, for what it's worth. I think both sides have good arguments. I think what the pro-pill argument misses is that, by excising any ultimate stake, life loses all its emotional shading and heft and becomes flat and sterile - but I think what the anti-pill argument potentially (but not always, actually) misses is that awareness-of-death doesn't automatically give meaning to life.


Not being afraid of when it when may end, even knowing it could end at anytime - that isn't something that is easily reached, right? We might agree that that's a good eudaimonic state to be in, but the getting-there is the hard part. There's a confrontation with fear, a full confrontation with fear, that is the entry-price of that state. And a full confrontation with fear (in all in its aspects: fear of pain, fear of the insufferability of injustice, fear of personal impotence, so forth) is probably a long, multi-stage process. I think something about voluntarily undergoing that process - freely accepting necessity, etc - is important.

I'm in the non-pill camp, for what it's worth. I think both sides have good arguments. I think what the pro-pill argument misses is that, by excising any ultimate stake, life loses all its emotional shading and heft and becomes flat and sterile - but I think what the anti-pill argument potentially (but not always, actually) misses is that awareness-of-death doesn't automatically give meaning to life.


Not being afraid of when it when may end, even knowing it could end at anytime - that isn't something that is easily reached, right? We might agree that that's a good eudaimonic state to be in, but the getting-there is the hard part. There's a confrontation with fear, a full confrontation with fear, that is the entry-price of that state. And a full confrontation with fear (in all in its aspects: fear of pain, fear of the insufferability of injustice, fear of personal impotence, so forth) is probably a long, multi-stage process. I think something about voluntarily undergoing that process - freely accepting necessity, etc - is important. — csalisbury

I agree with all of this while yet being pro-pill. Consider that aging isn't the only threat and that self-destruction also remains an option. I like your comments on the fear of death (it's kernel is sweet, says Feuerbach.) So why pro-pill? Certain things that I'd like to think I'd like to do don't seem like realistic options, or more exactly not worth the trouble, because I couldn't enjoy the results long enough, or because the world is structured so that some things are informally reserved for the young.

Consider a scenario in which scientists discover a way to reverse the aging process and keep a person young forever, and that this treatment becomes available to the public in the form of a single pill, with no strings attached. It truly is the miracle drug, a fountain of youth, that gives a person immortality.

Would you take it? — darthbarracuda

What about if, as a cost of taking the pill, you could also no longer post on TPF ever again, or discuss philosophy with anyone?

Depends on the pill. Does it make it so that you can’t die? If so I’d rather die. If all it does is prevent aging I’d probably take it though. I could always tap out when I want to. Doesn’t seem to have any downsides.

Pro-PIll: If life is more enjoyable when you're not afraid of when it might end - then take the pill, and rid yourself of that fear. Once you've taken the pill, you are in full control of the moment of your death. You're free of the fear of grim reaper death birds suddenly swooping. Now you can enjoy life in peace. — csalisbury

You’d still be afraid of all the same things I’d think. Robbers, thugs, drunk drivers, etc. The pill doesn’t stop those.

What about if, as a cost of taking the pill, you could also no longer post on TPF ever again — Pantagruel

Sounds like a sales pitch to me!

If all it does is prevent aging I’d probably take it though. I could always tap out when I want to. — khaled

Yeah, precisely: immorbidity rather than "immortality". :up:

What about if, as a cost of taking the pill, you could also no longer post on TPF ever again, or discuss philosophy with anyone? — Pantagruel

Done. Give me the pill! :death: :flower:

Consider a scenario in which scientists discover a way to reverse the aging process and keep a person young forever, and that this treatment becomes available to the public in the form of a single pill, with no strings attached. It truly is the miracle drug, a fountain of youth, that gives a person immortality.

Would you take it? — darthbarracuda

Hell no.

Immortality is a curse not a gift, because immortality brings apathy.

Only through the cycle of life and death, forgetting and relearning will life have meaning.

Another example, if death were truly so terrible, then it seems like people would be much more focused on preventing it. — darthbarracuda

I think this is a really bad argument, because it's plainly obvious that there are a bunch of thing everybody knows are bad ideas and people still do it.

For example, it seems to me that death in itself is not a bad thing. — darthbarracuda

What's your definition of "bad"? You seem to equate it with negative feelings here, and in that sense that statement is true, but then most people would say spending 10 years in a coma is "bad" even when you don't strictly speaking experience anything negative during that time.

I think what the pro-pill argument misses is that, by excising any ultimate stake, life loses all its emotional shading and heft and becomes flat and sterile — csalisbury

This seems to assume that people constantly contrast their experiences with death on offer to give them stakes and texture, and that seems very wrong.

Life has stakes because of the different paths it can take, not because it has an end.

Life has stakes because of the different paths it can take, not because it has an end. — Echarmion

:up: :100:

Life has stakes because of the different paths it can take, not because it has an end. — Echarmion

Kojeve makes the point that an immortal can get around to all paths, so I think mortality does have a place here. I don't have the immortal's luxury. I don't have time to be everyone. (I also have to start wherever I find myself, babbling in English in the Wal-Mart parking lot.

I think death is bad because it restricts our freedom to pursue our goals and interests. Perhaps we would have wanted to live more decades enjoying time with our friends and family, read the next sequel to our favorite novel, be there to witness scientific discoveries. That's why we mourn the death of the youth more than those at old age, because the former is seen as being robbed of opportunities they could have had.

I'm 27 and I doubt I'll see the Telomerase Revolution in my lifetime to extend my age.

Kojeve makes the point that an immortal can get around to all paths, so I think mortality does have a place here. — j0e

I don't think that's convincing. Whenever you make a decision, that excludes all other decisions you could have taken. Being in a similar situation and deciding differently in the future won't change that. So in order to say that someone with an arbitrarily long lifespan experiences "all paths" is tantamount to saying that there is some set number of different lifes, with a set duration, you can live.

Lifespans have already lengthened considerably. Someone who lives for 100 years doesn't live two lifes of a 50-year-old. So it doesn't make sense to me to draw some arbitrary line at X years and declare that this is the maximum amount of years anyone can live without loosing "meaning" or "stakes" or gets bored etc.

One can discuss what true immortality would actually be like, but that's not the scenario of the OP. Just an arbitrarily long (but never infinite) lifespan.

Whenever you make a decision, that excludes all other decisions you could have taken. — Echarmion

One point I almost made was that Kojeve is only right if order doesn't matter. I still think Kojeve is roughly right, but I consider this one a matter of opinion. To me the order doesn't matter much. Having only so much time means that I can't try everything, can't manifest all of my potentiality as a human being.

Someone who lives for 100 years doesn't live two lifes of a 50-year-old. So it doesn't make sense to me to draw some arbitrary line at X years and declare that this is the maximum amount of years anyone can live without loosing "meaning" or "stakes" or gets bored etc. — Echarmion

How many grains does it take to make a heap? I see your point, but perhaps living 1000 years lives quite a few lives. Maybe I'm a doctor for a century, spend a decade becoming a master helicopter pilot, end up reading in 25 languages. If the pill was readily available, others would be as experienced and developed, so conversation (and sexual relationships) would be at an extremely high level. I do wonder whether people would converge toward a single personality. Would this take 10,000 years? 100,000 years? Or would people diverge in ways I can't imagine?

I still think Kojeve is roughly right, but I consider this one a matter of opinion. — j0e

I think it's a matter of framing, specifically whether or not you consider death to be part of life, or whether you consider it the end / absence of life.

One problem I have with the "death is part of life" notion is the performative contradiction it entails. Moment to moment, the vast majority of people wants to live, regardless of age. Sure, rational suicide exists, but is usually accompanied with significant physical deteoriation of body or mind.

So it's very weird to see all these people claiming they wouldn't want the pill when all evidence suggests that if you asked them at any point "would you like to die today" the answer would almost always be "no!".

How many grains does it take to make a heap? — j0e

This is kinda the problem, yeah. A "full life" is a rhetorical construct, a category we talk about. It doesn't correspond to any actual age.

I do wonder whether people would converge toward a single personality. Would this take 10,000 years? 100,000 years? Or would people diverge in ways I can't imagine? — j0e

Hard to say what would happen to the brain if it just kept absorbing new information. I think personalities might change significantly over long periods of time, but probably not freely, but constrained by whatever basic structure was created early in development.

It seems likely that there is an upper limit to the amount of experiences a brain can contain, though it's unlikely to work like storage space on a harddrive. More like some memories slowly evolving into other memories, until the original no longer has any part in the current person.

Interesting question. I'm assuming you don't age, but aren't invulnerable. Do you still need food and water to live? If so, I might abstain for the same reason I eat very little meat or dairy. The pill might be good for the individual, but everyone doing it would result in a catastrophy. Imagine the increase in pollution, resource scarcity, and wars over resource scarcity produced by immortality.

Being young forever is appealing. You hit peak cognitive processing power in your early 20s, but lack the knowledge to take full advantage of it. You have more energy, fewer pains. I'd love it. That said, all men walking around with early 20s testosterone levels would also result in negative consequences.

Maybe 80 years is enough. Or maybe aging is a transition that makes it easier to leave at the end of your life. I'm not sure, but 160 years of youth would certainly give me a lot more career flexibility.

If it made you immortal and indestructible, the answer is definitely no. Sounds like Hell.

This seems to assume that people constantly contrast their experiences with death on offer to give them stakes and texture, and that seems very wrong.

Life has stakes because of the different paths it can take, not because it has an end. — Echarmion

I think that's fair. Upon reflection, death, per se, isn't what gives my life flavor either ( full disclosure: I'm a staunch believer in reincarnation, but even if I wasn't...)

Let me put it another way. The reason why [acting in one way further unfurls one path, while foreclosing another] gives meaning and texture is that there is the possibility of some paths leading to very frightful things. For those that believe in a single life, one of those frightful things - often ( but not always) the most frightful thing - is death.

But, agreeing with your point, It could also be other things: having a child who rejects you, terminal-alcoholism, inflicting irreversible pain on someone you love. Some alternative paths, even for a one-lifer, are worth than death.

On the other hand, maybe a road not taken could have offered: reconciliation with an estranged child; recovery; integration into a loving community. Again, whether you believe in multiple lives or not, these things are meaningful, and the possibility of those possibilities not being actualized produces very high stakes.

I think 'death' is often used as shorthand for 'worst possible outcome' and I was posting in that key, but I agree that it's not the only, or even most-moving key.

At the same time, I think there is something to the fact that death imposes an inexorable time-limit on righting wrongs. If we had available infinite time, we could have infinite stabs on making things right. We didn't go down this path, went down the other. 'Well, given infinite time, we'll go down the other next time.' So even in those non-death scenarios, where other things have the more profound impact, death still plays a strong secondary role - as a countdown clock.

Consider a scenario in which scientists discover a way to reverse the aging process and keep a person young forever, and that this treatment becomes available to the public in the form of a single pill, with no strings attached. It truly is the miracle drug, a fountain of youth, that gives a person immortality.

Would you take it? — darthbarracuda

It depends. If I could take it along with family members and friends, yes, I would. Otherwise, I would continually form a family, meanwhile thinking back of the loved ones no longer with me. Memories of people I once loved and spent time with, but no longer with me, would be soulful for me.