The nature of immortality is so complex, ranging from a sense of one's place in the larger scheme to a sense of an actual afterlife. I grew up with concrete ideas of life after death, especially in the Christian ideas of resurrection but began to think of alternatives, including reincarnation.

Thinking of all such ideas, I am left wondering to what extent it is about actual existence or a symbolic way of seeing one's own mortal existence in a larger frame. I am not sure from the point of ego psychology of what if would mean to live forever. On the other hand, if may be that aspects of oneself continue as part of cycles and the continuity of life. The biggest questions of immortality may involve the nature of ego consciousness and the nature of separate 'minds'.

It [death] is foundational to the human condition and I would say that without it we would simply lose our humanity, if not our minds first. — Benj96

We can do both of those things in the awareness of mortality. "Humanity" is not something to be particularly proud of, and our minds are, at best, delicately balanced. We buy into absurdly implausible eternal-life-insurance schemes and commit atrocities in the name of whatever god promises our side immortality.

And yet, the progress we see in tech innovation and medicine certainly seems bound for immortality if that ultimatum is at all possible. — Benj96

Virtual immortality - as pure energy, reborn in new bodies, in heaven or in the Matrix - seems the only way that's even remotely possible. Can't have all those billions of lumbering, milling, consuming, contentious, rapacious human bodies on this one planet, and they're too heavy to move anywhere else.


We hate and fear the idea of ceasing to exist, having our painstakingly constructed personality, accumulated memory and closely guarded ego wiped out like writing off a blackboard. That's why people invest in being frozen or cloned or having potential progeny kept on ice indefinitely. Failing that, they want to leave offspring or monuments, footnotes in history books, foundations, endowments or things named after themselves - a legacy wherein they may continue some kind of existence.

What do you think the ideal life span for a human is? — Benj96

As long as there are enough positive aspects of life to outweigh the negative. With luck and decent health care system, 100+/- years is not unreasonable.

How do we justify the right to death if one is perfectly healthy but simply feels it's their time? — Benj96

If they're in perfect health, they can suicide any time, with no justification. Certainly, I don't feel that anyone except my spouse owes me an explanation, and I don't think the law has any business in such a private matter.

Should anyone be allowed to be immortal and if so why? — Benj96

There are three kinds of immortality in fiction: you can't die of natural causes but can be killed; you can't die at all, but can be damaged, or you keep coming back fresh and new from every kind of death. If society has no control over the matter, 'allowed' is a moot point.
If they can be killed, do you mean mandatory recycling at 300, or 80, or 35? I can't see our collective ability to handle such a decision, nor would I trust a state agency to carry out the program. If some mad scientist came up with the formula for Tree-of-life fruit juice, he would almost certainly keep that secret within a small circle.

Several things:

First, you're discussing amortality (one doesn't die of old age, but can be killed just as you can be currently), not immortality (you can't die).

Secondly, immortality without eradication of aging and disease is torture (of an exquisitely twisted variety) that no thinking person would desire.

What do you think the ideal life span for a human is? How do we justify the right to death if one is perfectly healthy but simply feels it's their time?
Should anyone be allowed to be immortal and if so why? — Benj96

There is no ideal lifespan. People move at different speeds. Some people of 50 have lived a life so rich, full they can make someone of 90 look like a naïve teenager.

The idea of immortality seems like a torment to me. I’m in my 50’s but I can’t imagine wanting more than 80 years, I simply don't find life interesting enough. But I imagine that disposition and physiological drives account for much of the difference between folk.

I’m in my 50’s but I can’t imagine wanting more than 80 years, I simply don't find life interesting enough. — Tom Storm

Life is as interesting as you are able to and choose to make it. I've known people well into their 80's who still found new adventures, or volunteered or took up arts and hobbies that they had no time for previously; who enjoyed their freedom from life-long obligations. Why should naive teenagers of 90 be censured, or 60-year-olds with rich and varied experience be snuffed out before they could pass along what they've learned?

Life is as interesting as you are able to and choose to make it. — Vera Mont

I hear you but not everyone finds life especially interesting after a certain point. I don't think it's a choice so much as a disposition. Note, I am separating this tendency form anhedonia or other psychological conditions.

Why should naïve teenagers of 90 be censured, or 60-year-olds with rich and varied experience be snuffed out before they could pass along what they've learned? — Vera Mont

Who is talking about censuring? I was simply expressing a personal view about my repugnance at the idea of immortality.

Why should naive teenagers of 90 be censured, or 60-year-olds with rich and varied experience be snuffed out before they could pass along what they've learned? — Vera Mont

I don't associate age with wisdom. In generally I have learned a lot more from people younger than me.

I don't associate age with wisdom. — Tom Storm

Nor do I. I was referring to :

Some people of 50 have lived a life so rich, full — Tom Storm

Presumably, such a person would have life experience useful to people who have less. So I'm asking why such a person should be ready to die at 50? Why would they not want to continue a rich, full life? As for

they can make someone of 90 look like a naïve teenager. — Tom Storm

I should think that 90-year-old would be avid for some experience before it's too late.
Your repugnance is not their repugnance.
For myself, I can imagine another century of learning, experience and activity, physical and mental condition permitting.

Fundamentally, as individuals we aspire to maximize our well being (which includes access to 'all possible" existential and practical options). Indefinite youthspan + healthspan + brainspan = completely voluntary lifespan (barring fatal misadventures) aka "immortality". As long as one can die (or go into a state of unrevivable hibernation lasting for decades or centuries) voluntarily, I imagine the upsides far outweigh any downsides.

However, I have two requirements which I also imagine would make "immortality" more bearable, even optimal, for an ex-mortal human:

(1) the process of (somehow) becoming "immortal" should be restricted only to mentally healthy-competent (thoroughly screened) and childless (i.e. no living, direct descendants) over-70 year old individuals; and

(2) becoming "immortal", while resetting biological age to 20s-40s as an option, memory recall should be limited to that of a mortal lifespan whereby 7 or 8 decades-old memories are continually "overwritten" by new memories so that an "immortal" remains a psychologically human mortal (thus, offloading memories onto analogue/digital media (as we do now) for retrieval centuries or millennia later on).

I think these restriictions favor maturity of lived-mortal-experience (e.g. empathy + patience) and continual renewal of subjective motivations (e.g. creative challenges) through the centuries. Otherwise, "immortality" might readily become a dehumanized, living hell.

Presumably, such a person would have life experience useful to people who have less. So I'm asking why such a person should be ready to die at 50? Why would they not want to continue a rich, full life? — Vera Mont

I'm not saying early death should be compulsory, it's just an additional dimension to the formulation of the OP's question - what constitutes 'an ideal lifespan' as if years are the only criteria of value. I'm simply making the point that a 50 year-old who has experienced and done a lot can die with that satisfaction. If I were to die tonight, for instance, I'd be reasonably ok with this as I have done a fair bit and don't really have any significant further goals.

I've known a few 90 year-olds who just seem to keep on living - sitting in their chair watching TV for decades.

I am obviously bringing my criteria of value to this which is that there seems little point to immortality, or a even a long life, if you spend most of it doing fuck all.

Interesting proposition. Not sure you get to dictate terms, though. In the fiction, such opportunities are a la carte, not buffet.

I am obviously bringing my criteria of value to this which is that there seems little point to immortality, or a even a long life, if you spend most of it doing fuck all. — Tom Storm

Beats the hell out of doing great, glorious historical things, like carving out an empire or conducting a crusade or discovering a savage continent, ripe for plunder.
Yes, I understand about personal values. I believe they should be the deciding factor in our own personal lives, and nobody else's. Why I oppose capital punishment, legal constraints on assisted suicide or contested living wills.

My "offer" is speculative (not "fiction") and a single dish "buffet". :wink:

I understand about personal values. I believe they should be the deciding factor in our own personal lives, and nobody else's. Why I oppose capital punishment, legal constraints on assisted suicide or contested living wills.

:up: :up:

If I were to die tonight, for instance, I'd be reasonably ok with this as I have done a fair bit and don't really have any significant further goals. — Tom Storm

Eudaimonia. We should all be as fortunate as you, Tom. :cool:

memory recall should be limited to that of a mortal lifespan whereby 7 or 8 decades-old memories are continually "overwritten" by new memories so that an "immortal" remains a psychologically human mortal — 180 Proof

Do these ex-mortals have to pay their way? There's going to be an energy requirement. Why think that humanity wouldn't shut you down, at some point in time, rather than pay the bill?

Beats the hell out of doing great, glorious historical things, like carving out an empire or conducting a crusade or discovering a savage continent, ripe for plunder. — Vera Mont

I imagine it's people who did things like these who most craved immortality. Second prize - historical fame. :wink:

Eudaimonia. We should all be as fortunate as you, Tom. :cool: — 180 Proof

:pray: Or I might just lack imagination

Do these ex-mortals have to pay their way? — wonderer1

Probably not. :smirk:

:sweat:

Ha ha.

I can easily imagine myself being busy for all eternity planting plants and never getting bored or tired of it. Trees, bushes, grasses, flowers. But mostly trees. I'd love that.

Think of all the planets you could terraform! That will be my next bumper-sticker:
The Universe Needs More Trees!

The biggest questions of immortality may involve the nature of ego consciousness and the nature of separate 'minds'. — Jack Cummins

Indeed, agreed. If the conscious "I" is universal to all living things and the "self identity" or "ego" is simply a thin ,temporary veil of separateness it could serve to support ideas of reincarnation, or general eternal awareness we all share but experience uniquely as living individuals.

I sometimes ask myself how would people's attitudes change if death was no longer feared or seen as an ultimatum. If we had proof that we still exist after death but simply change identity, would we be happier, would that confer peace of mind, would we identify or relate more with all other living things.

all very good points Vera.

Virtual immortality - as pure energy, reborn in new bodies, in heaven or in the Matrix - seems the only way that's even remotely possible — Vera Mont

I agree. If we could prove energy is innately conscious, than really we don't need to do anything at all. Death loses its total oblivion status and we can merely live out our lives as per usual knowing that when we die, we will become something else still aware in some capacity, somewhere, for some time.

The fear of death may be decreased perhaps. But I think people still fear losing control, losing memory, self identity etc in the same way I would fear getting alzheimers/dementia. But that fear I guess ends when the current self does. If we have indeed been recycled by mother nature through thousands of previous lives lived and remember none of them, then really there's a lot of security in that.

But for now death remains an enigma. Total uncertainty.

legacy wherein they may continue some kind of existence. — Vera Mont

I agree. But I feel legacy is much more within reach than we typically think. I Believe simply existing has an impact on everyone one meets. The butterfly effect.

Or even simply having kids. They are a physical and partly mental legacy of their parents. For some this is enough, for others more ambitious, they want to invent or write or create something of longstanding admiration, utility and/or social resonance.

If they're in perfect health, they can suicide any time, with no justification. Certainly, I don't feel that anyone except my spouse owes me an explanation, and I don't think the law has any business in such a private matter. — Vera Mont

I feel if we could stall ageing then this would be a great hurdle to overcome. To allow people to die when they want. Suicide may seem like a preventable mental health illness to someone with the current lifespan but if we could live for thousands of years, I think attitudes towards suicide would have to change. Perhaps it may even be celebrated as a point in time when someone feels their purpose or life has been fulfilled and they're finally content to let go of existing.

First, you're discussing amortality (one doesn't die of old age, but can be killed just as you can be currently), not immortality (you can't die). — LuckyR

Very good clarifications thank you LuckyR. I realised immortality as a concept is more nuanced in the various criterion involved

good points. Life is definitely for me, as it seems also for you, more about quality than quantity. If experience is the measure of a life well lived, than the most intrepid explorers and experimenters, the most curious, attain a rich life much faster than the self contained. But I think I life well lived ofc is not as simple as doing as much as you can in the time you have.

At the end of the day, age aside, one's own reflections on their life as it draws to a close is the most important measure, as it is the only one that matters for them. Subjective. We merely need to avoid living in a state of regret whatever we do, or don't.

memory recall should be limited to that of a mortal lifespan whereby 7 or 8 decades-old memories are continually "overwritten" by new memories — 180 Proof

I agree. I think there is need for the flexibility of mind conferred by forgetting. If one is to adapt to the ever changing conditions if life, an endless memory I would imagine would be more a hindrance than a help.

Having said that, compounding experiences into rich rounded kernels of wisdom is important. Theses should carry through even of they were forged by memories long forgotten. We should inherit only the important essence of the previously highly detailed memories we had all those years ago that were lost.

It allows for novelty if we can forget.

However long they the participant finds it to be ideal. — Vaskane

Interesting. And suppose we have those that do not want to die ever. Financially and economically they're at a great advantage. Would we need some taxes and policies in place to prevent them becoming absurdly wealthy or powerful if they plan to live eternally.

How do we level the playing field and make it fair if they have all the time in the world and others don't, even by choice?

I can easily imagine myself being busy for all eternity planting plants and never getting bored or tired of it. Trees, bushes, grasses, flowers. But mostly trees. I'd love that. — baker

Me too tbh. I love gardening. The prospect of having endless time to grow the reach of my horticulture plans and watch ot mature into a stately forest etc would be fantastic.

But the crushing reality is that one would have to bear witness to the inevitable destruction and struggle of their creation with time - climate change, ice ages, meteorites etc. I'm sure it would be reduced to ashes several times. Mass extinctions.

Think of all the planets you could terraform! That will be my next bumper-sticker:
The Universe Needs More Trees! — Vera Mont

Agreed. How exciting to witness the spreading of life to the far reaches of the universe. If we were immortal I'm sure agenda number one would be to garden the cosmos. At least they way we have an endless frontier to overcome.

Death is highly motivational.
3d — Vaskane

It certainly is. It gives context to life. Just as the potential for failure gives context to success. Opposites are required for contrast, definition and thus relative meaning.

Older people with impaired memories nonetheless seem to retain (much of) their 'wisdom'. I suspect higher metacognitive functions such as 'wisdom' or language-fluency are products of (self(?)-organizing) memories and not memories themselves.

But I think I life well lived ofc is not as simple as doing as much as you can in the time you have. — Benj96

Agree.

At the end of the day, age aside, one's own reflections on their life as it draws to a close is the most important measure, as it is the only one that matters for them. Subjective. We merely need to avoid living in a state of regret whatever we do, or don't. — Benj96

Agree.

I'm sure it would be reduced to ashes several times. Mass extinctions. — Benj96

And grown again.
The prospect of immortality gives one infinite hope. If one is devoted to living things, of course.