Food for thought: Ammortality

[Amor_Fati]

Altered Carbon? I'll hunt for that book. Thanks TBV!

It's hard to avoid the bioethics part of the subject, since the feasability of an ammortal society is directly linked to it. Bioethics is not just saying "it's bad" or "it's good". It's also about long-term viability and social, psychological viability. For example, there are people who are born without the ability to feel pain. They generally don't live long. People born without the ability to die looks rather similar to me. Maybe there would be a need of a "first death" then a "resurrection" just to experience what it is, but it would probably be a rather traumatic event.

I quite agree with you, and understand that this topic is, in a deeper analysis, about bioethics. What I'm trying to avoid is to degenerate this into a "we should not play god!" vs "we must have the right to engineer nature" flame war.

 

[Milten]

I don't know if the brain can be preserved from ageing,

Cell aging is caused by DNA degradation and nature already has solution for that, the only thing missing is next-gen genetic modification.

the human memory is not made for such long lifespans

'Made for' is quite tricky term for biomechanisms. Our brain wasn't made for solving equations from functional analysis (and you can check it yourself), but it can.
You don't remember every second of your life, because brain has means for trash cleaning, so these hypothetical immortals wouldn't remember some years from their life, or centuries.

 

[Rory1237]

I mean yeah evil is a loaded term, but oligarchies tend to be self serving and insular and over the long run are rarely a good way of governing for the benefit of anyone outside the ruling clique + their connections. To imagine a system that would produce a perpetually benevolent oligarchy is somewhat fantastical.
I stress the western middle classes thing because its something I see progressive (especially white, middle class, highly educated ) people here in the UK forget a lot; to rail against the power the 1% have while not realising that we're actually part of that, and I'm suspicious that if they realise they were calling for their own power to be reduced then they'd suddenly be a lot less loud about the 1%...

It's about narrative. It's well and good to talk about immortality for a clique of 1%ers leading to an oligarchic dystopia with the possibility of generating a nice people vs the power story. I just think realistically that most people on these forums would end up vs. the people, whereas most people tend to want to see themselves as "the people"

I don't think I'm explaining anything very well tbh, I'm mostly here to distract myself from finishing my dissertation

Which is why I envisioned a situation with the highest oligarchs pitting their power-bases against one another in a bid for power, such a system while not benevolent is also not necessarily evil. It may be an ineffective system or the competition could fuel innovation in an attempt to out-compete one another. Lower oligarchs, I envision either taking roles in sciences, local governance or management of smaller businesses; or becoming decadent and simply living shallow lives fueled by the next cheap thrill in an attempt to stimulate a mind that has seen everything.

I couldn't agree more with people forgetting how great life is in the western world and railing against any whom they deem to be the current "1% oligarchy", perhaps this may even be the attitude of the lower 1% in this scenario.

I think I also, in an attempt to portray an alternate world in one post that wouldn't scare people away, have not explained myself well.

Just out of interest under-grad or post-grad? I've just finished my history undergrad dissertation last week. Also distracting myself from an essay.

 

[.NoWay.]

Question is: would you even want to live forever?

 

[Safehold]

Having disparate wealth levels already foments envy and wealth redistribution. How much more dramatic would it become for those that could Redistribute Life as well?

 

[MN121MN]

Discovery Channel ran an episode on this back in their "Curiosity" series, I think it's called "Can You Live Forever" with Adam Sandler from Mythbuster hosting ....

I wouldn't know the true accuracy of such an episode, but it's quite interesting....

 

[Alucardex]

Question is: would you even want to live forever?

Yes I would. As an atheist who doesn't believe in any form of afterlife I can't really perceive why anyone would want to willingly die when not faced with terminal illnes or incurable pain.

 

[.NoWay.]

Yes I would. As an atheist who doesn't believe in any form of afterlife I can't really perceive why anyone would want to willingly die when not faced with terminal illnes or incurable pain.

Traumatic events, such as the loss of loved ones for example? Decadence throughout the new society?

 

[Alucardex]

Traumatic events, such as the loss of loved ones for example? Decadence throughout the new society?

Well traumatic loss I would call a form of mental pain.
But what exactly does decadence mean in this context? No longer enjoying life?

 

[sparta105]

We've near a major turning point in human history: Our medicine, genetic engineering and cyborg engineering are so advanced that we can actually change from "healing diseases" to "improving the human being". I know, I know, there are LOTS of bioethics dicussion around this topic, but let me sidestep them for a moment.

Anyway, once a race have advanced enough in these fields (again, if bioethics allows it), a species can achieve something akin to Ammortality. Please note that this is NOT Immortality - a human being could surely die if someone put a bullet (or shoots a laser gun) in his head, or by an accident, or by a superbacteria. But it means that "natural causes" are very unlikely to kill us with the amount of artificial organs (either mechanical or organic), turning our own cells into stem cells again, and general medical care. If we had that kind of Ammortality, living for 300, 500 years or more could be the norm (like if you research the lifespan-extending techs in Stellaris), unless someone had a very unfortunate event.

How would be such a society? Would the general costs associated with it would foment a divide between the amortal 1% and the "short-lived" 99%? Why would someone who can live pratically forever expose itself to the risks of exploring space (I heard traveling in spacecraft is quite dangerous)? How it would change our view of death if we could keep eluding it for (almost endless) centuries? How the amortal would relate with the "common humans"? What if you consistently outlived everyone you loved and cared for? How the society would evolve with the progressive increase of lifespan (like the one provided by each lifespan-extending tech in Stellaris)?

Please lets try to avoid the bioethics debate, as it would probably derail this thread when ppl firmly stand for their favorite sides.

Well, I feel that it would really damage us in the long run. If we can achieve practical immortality, we would be disencoureged to invest in other forms of science leading to a general stagnation.

If I recall correctly Asimov touched this subject in one of his books (unfortunately I don't remember which one).

 

[sbytheway]

Which is why I envisioned a situation with the highest oligarchs pitting their power-bases against one another in a bid for power, such a system while not benevolent is also not necessarily evil. It may be an ineffective system or the competition could fuel innovation in an attempt to out-compete one another. Lower oligarchs, I envision either taking roles in sciences, local governance or management of smaller businesses; or becoming decadent and simply living shallow lives fueled by the next cheap thrill in an attempt to stimulate a mind that has seen everything.

I couldn't agree more with people forgetting how great life is in the western world and railing against any whom they deem to be the current "1% oligarchy", perhaps this may even be the attitude of the lower 1% in this scenario.

I think I also, in an attempt to portray an alternate world in one post that wouldn't scare people away, have not explained myself well.

Just out of interest under-grad or post-grad? I've just finished my history undergrad dissertation last week. Also distracting myself from an essay.

Seems like a system fuelled by a race between the ruling class being able to accrue power quickly enough to balance out the resentment of the lower orders!
I'm a Physics BSc 3rd year student 70% of the way through writing up my dissertation which is due tomorrow at 5pm. I don't have anything NEW to do but good lord is it tedious to finish that final bit of write up and formatting... not helped that my supervisor has eff'd off to the US for the last month so I've got no feedback on my drafts!

 

[TastyMints]

I had been wondering if there would be some options to explore various forms of technology that results in immortal and/or "post-human" rulers that take. Things like uploading a Dictator or Monarch's mind into an synthetic medium like a robot or a nanite colony, proliferating such technology among an Autocracy, and so on. Maybe even That Race of psionic monsters commanded by a horrid mutant ruler. (I do recall a screenshot mentioning psionic armies after all.) Mind you, it would follow that in-game factions might very well be upset with a decision like this.

It would certainly be amusing to play the part of the Robot Overlord, secretly constructing armies and fleets manned entirely by robots with the intent of using them to crush any resistance to your everlasting regime. Could also make for some very interesting decisions and events in the late-game in regard to extra-galactic invaders or synthetic uprisings. Maybe something to consider for an expansion?

 

[Alucardex]

Well, I feel that it would really damage us in the long run. If we can achieve practical immortality, we would be disencoureged to invest in other forms of science leading to a general stagnation.

If I recall correctly Asimov touched this subject in one of his books (unfortunately I don't remember which one).

Is that really all that bad? I mean is progress really something to strife for or isn't it just a means to an end? Leading better more enjoyable lives and satisfying our natural curiosity?

 

[ParagonExile]

Perhaps, but that would require perfect understanding of how a brain works, how it stores memories and abilities, how thought processes work, and it would require us to be perfectly able to manipulate these things. That's a much more complicated matter than biological immortality, and would have much deeper consequences than just very long lifespans (you could simply imprint an ability or a memory into a random person, or implant the fake memories of a life that is millenia long in a newborn!)

You don't need to fully understand something or how it works to replicate it. That's the idea behind reverse engineering.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

I'm a Physics BSc 3rd year student 70% of the way through writing up my dissertation which is due tomorrow at 5pm. I don't have anything NEW to do but good lord is it tedious to finish that final bit of write up and formatting... not helped that my supervisor has eff'd off to the US for the last month so I've got no feedback on my drafts!

My best wishes on that. What's your topic, if you don't mind me going off-topic?

 

[sbytheway]

My best wishes on that. What's your topic, if you don't mind me going off-topic?

Barotropic Stability in a Gaussian Jet. I'm modelling a very simple jet, wiggling it, seeing if when and how it blows up, and then really reaching to say how any of that is relevant to modern climate science and the jet stream. It's been an ordeal.

 

[Chyll]

We are getting closer to these issues all the time. Apparently Elizabeth Parrish, CEO of Bioviva USA took experimental treatments in late 2015 causing a stir - not approved for human testing and initial results appear successful in reversing aging effects. (slashdot link provided)

Add this to increased robotic and AI developments which will reduce active employment activities... and society could be radically different within a few decades.

 

[xendor93]

As long as we don't become immortal and we can slow down the aging process as well, it'll trickle down.

Now, bear with me "no, the rich will want to exploit the poor and keep it for themselves" people. If those two conditions were met, it would mean that people could be productive for longer, meaning less money having to be paid to people's pensions, and less money spent on health problems for the government.

You're completely ignoring the costs of such technology and robotics : why I, rich person in a society capable to boost the human body and mind but with high and maybe continuative (due to the limited life span of bionich organs etc...) costs, should make less difficult for poor (or even mid-class) people to get the enhacenments able to keep them young (or simplier: productive) for long and boost their life span?
I'm not talking about the "keep a technology for yourself" situation, but about the "paying for it (let's assume that ammortality isn't declared an universal right and public don't provide it) because it's convenient for you". Why should you make a person to live for really long time for working purpouses (production) when it can be realistic that a society able to boost the body will also able to produce productive and "indipendent" robots working for how much time you like (no sleep, no luch time, no family, no leisure, no school years, no grow-up) and making low-skilled jobs useless?
And, since also brain gets old too and, to keep people young and productive, I expect such a technology also needs a deep understanding of how the brain works... so, why shouldn't such a society be able to produce also intelligent (brain-like AI) robot, capable of replacing also medium-skilled jobs?
So, there will be no convenience for the rich to keep the poors alive forever: the important for a capitalist society is demand, and you don't need quite-immortal people to have demand. Also, I think I wouldn't like to live for so long without having the means to enjoy it: don't forget that we aren't machines, we have emotions, and a deep boredom can show up quite fast if your loooong life is a work-home routine for hundred(s) years.

In the end, I see much space for really dystopic societies (where only few can get their life span boosted and everyone else will leave in deep poverty, if low skilled, or in a whole-life-of-hard-work if high skilled but not bornt rich... or, second alternative, where everyone has his life boosted, but since people will begin to spend their wealth on improvements, economics inequalities will become more and more spread), unless ammortality is established as human right and the economy fundamentals are deeply changed, to avoid machine-like exploitation (no more middle class, let's say) of human work.

 

[DukeTowers]

How would be such a society? Would the general costs associated with it would foment a divide between the amortal 1% and the "short-lived" 99%? Why would someone who can live pratically forever expose itself to the risks of exploring space (I heard traveling in spacecraft is quite dangerous)? How it would change our view of death if we could keep eluding it for (almost endless) centuries? How the amortal would relate with the "common humans"? What if you consistently outlived everyone you loved and cared for? How the society would evolve with the progressive increase of lifespan (like the one provided by each lifespan-extending tech in Stellaris)?

Well, I can't discuss about bioethics (I'm an amoral atheist bitch who wishes for the gruesome death of everyone ), but I can imagine the economic development of ammortality impact on humankind. I do believe that if such technology exists, depending on the costs and the availability of those treatments, governments could (and probably would) step up and guarantee these services to people who would, otherwise, have no means to access it. Anyone who lives in a country with state health system will understand my point: cancer treatment is expensive, but in Brazil, for instance, government pays for your healthcare (it's terribly morose, and bureaucratic, but they do). Much like broadband, AIDS and cancer care, or drinking water, governments would probably declare ammortality a basic human right.

Moreover, this would definitely halt birthrates, because you're no longer dying, so why'd you need offspring? I think that human population will become more or less constant after such technology becomes commonplace - that is, until star travel becomes a reality, then you'd want to have kids to increase population in your colonies.

Finally, if you become a 300 yo human with nothing amusing to do anymore, you'd be itching for the chance to go to space. Who knows, maybe this technology can make the 40 years jump to Alpha Centaury a bit more bearable. What's 40 years when you've got 4 centuries to live?

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

Barotropic Stability in a Gaussian Jet. I'm modelling a very simple jet, wiggling it, seeing if when and how it blows up, and then really reaching to say how any of that is relevant to modern climate science and the jet stream. It's been an ordeal.

Wow. That sounds really awful. I avoided fluid mechanics really, really hard during my degree. If you can do it then I afford you enormous respect.