Food for thought: Ammortality

[Amercareth]

I tend to agree with sbytheway. The first people to become 'amortal' may be super-rich, but I doubt normal western people would sit around for long not trying to get such a valuable 'commodity'. In western countries where we mostly have healthcare provided, i do not think it would be a stretch for people to want to make amortality provided for as well. It might not take long for people to start calling life (long life) a right of the citizen in such countries. That said, there would be people in other countries which do not have the means to provide this. There, only the rich might receive treatments (provided in western hospitals, perhaps), and when the poor see their loved-ones dying while westerners (not to mention the ruling elite of their own country) avoid this, there will be resentment. Some off this resentment may boil over into violence--and even if it doesnt, the newly Amortal will fear it more than ever.

I don't think amortality is a bad thing. But from the get-go, it must have universality as it's end goal, or else the two diverging groups in humanity might each inflict a different kind of dystopia on one another.

 

[Cyridius]

So long as we live under our current socioeconomic system, such technologies will always be the preserve of the privileged few.

 

[cedi]

Biological Immortality might be the better term.

 

[sparta105]

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?

Think about it: if we do not allow ourselves to die, then after a while we stop reproducing as there is no incentive to do so. But that way there are no newer generations. If the old generation remians, that means that their beliefs, ethics, viewpoints, methods etc. will also remain. If we do not allow a new generation to take our place to bring their new viewpoints, we won't be able progress any further.

 

[ParagonExile]

Think about it: if we do not allow ourselves to die, then after a while we stop reproducing as there is no incentive to do so. But that way there are no newer generations. If the old generation remians, that means that their beliefs, ethics, viewpoints, methods etc. will also remain. If we do not allow a new generation to take our place to bring their new viewpoints, we won't be able progress any further.

People can change their minds. And it's not like there's going to be zero new people

 

[darwinthepiercer]

Peter F. Hamilton's "Commonwealth Saga" handles this issue brilliantly. Perma-death is a thing of the past (except on certain backwater worlds) and the whole of human society has a lot of interesting social and cultural oddities that have arisen because of ammortality.

Not sure how this would translate into game terms, though.

 

[sparta105]

People can change their minds. And it's not like there's going to be zero new people

Well, the way I see it, we reproduce to keep our species alive because individuals die (let's not count the... accidents). If we do not die, there would be absolutely no incentive to have children. In fact, the logical step would be to introduce birth qoutas or an outright ban of having children because there would be an overpopulation crisis if we didn't do it.
I'm sorry I'm this negative regarding this subject. I really, reeeeeeaaaaaaaally hope I'm wrong.

 

[Ottoman Master]

So long as we live under our current socioeconomic system, such technologies will always be the preserve of the privileged few.

"So long as we live under our current socioeconomic system, such technologies will always be the preserve of the privileged few." - Some guy probably about a year before the invention of the internet when asked about potential internet like technologies.

 

[DukeTowers]

Think about it: if we do not allow ourselves to die, then after a while we stop reproducing as there is no incentive to do so. But that way there are no newer generations. If the old generation remians, that means that their beliefs, ethics, viewpoints, methods etc. will also remain. If we do not allow a new generation to take our place to bring their new viewpoints, we won't be able progress any further.

Not necessarily. A lot of our society values (like religion and social security for the elder) are built around the idea of mortality. When you face the fact that you will die, religion becomes a balm, a way to ease the angst. Remove biological mortality, and society will most likely rethink how they deal with several issues. Many (not all, of course, but many) will think that Christianity must be revisited, because, well, there's no need to die and go to the Kingdom of Heavens.

 

[ParagonExile]

Well, the way I see it, we reproduce to keep our species alive because individuals die (let's not count the... accidents). If we do not die, there would be absolutely no incentive to have children. In fact, the logical step would be to introduce birth qoutas or an outright ban of having children because there would be an overpopulation crisis if we didn't do it.
I'm sorry I'm this negative regarding this subject. I really, reeeeeeaaaaaaaally hope I'm wrong.

Naw, people would have children even if it was just an accident. Mommies and daddies love each other very much without baby being present if you catch my meaning. And if everyone is immortal even an abysmal growth rate created by accidental pregnancies will suffice to replace people killed in accidents.

 

[sparta105]

Not necessarily. A lot of our society values (like religion and social security for the elder) are built around the idea of mortality. When you face the fact that you will die, religion becomes a balm, a way to ease the angst. Remove biological mortality, and society will most likely rethink how they deal with several issues. Many (not all, of course, but many) will think that Christianity must be revisited, because, well, there's no need to die and go to the Kingdom of Heavens.

Well, I'm pessimistic about this since during our roughly 10000 years of existence there is only one thing we managed to leave behind: slavery. It even took us 2 world wars to figure out that killing each other is not glorious or a good business.
But don't get me wrong though! I'm still hoping that I'm wrong. And what you said certainly made me think. So I might change my mind sometime down the line

 

[xendor93]

I tend to agree with sbytheway. The first people to become 'amortal' may be super-rich, but I doubt normal western people would sit around for long not trying to get such a valuable 'commodity'. In western countries where we mostly have healthcare provided, i do not think it would be a stretch for people to want to make amortality provided for as well. It might not take long for people to start calling life (long life) a right of the citizen in such countries. That said, there would be people in other countries which do not have the means to provide this. There, only the rich might receive treatments (provided in western hospitals, perhaps), and when the poor see their loved-ones dying while westerners (not to mention the ruling elite of their own country) avoid this, there will be resentment. Some off this resentment may boil over into violence--and even if it doesnt, the newly Amortal will fear it more than ever.

I don't think amortality is a bad thing. But from the get-go, it must have universality as it's end goal, or else the two diverging groups in humanity might each inflict a different kind of dystopia on one another.

Healthcare is a universal right (for example, in Italy any medical treatment is free for the poors and have a symbolic cost for the middle class and the rich) because not everyone get seriously ill at the same time: through taxes the State provides healthcare, that means you don't have to pay 100'000+ € for a heart surgery.
But if everyone needed during the same year a heart surgery, the whole country's GDP wouldn't make up for the cost of providing that service to 60 mln people.
Economically, universal healthcare is an universal healthcare insurance: you have a certain probability of getting ill during your life, so the State provide you with the coverage. The point is that the probability is low enough to allow it with just a 15% tax rate (for healthcare alone).

Let's say that providing body-enhancing surgeries would cost 10 mln € for the whole life of a person (300 years, since improved?). It would mean, taking Italy as an example, that you have to spend 10 mln x 60 mln = 600'000 billions €, or 400 times the GDP (and 60-80 times the wealth, both financial and physical, of the population). You can understand it would be impossible to provide such a technology to every person, even making it a universal right.
If the cost is 1 mln €, you would need 40 times the GDP and 6-8 times the wealth.
If it's 100k €, you would need 4 times the GDP and 0,6-0,8 times the wealth. And, over a 300 years life span, it would be possible to provide it as a universal right, making the whole population "immortal" in 30-40 years.

So: really much of the conclusion depends on the cost of such a technology. Even in a non-capitalistic society or in a capitalistic society with a state trying to provide it for free.

 

[208]

Why would someone who can live pratically forever expose itself to the risks of exploring space (I heard traveling in spacecraft is quite dangerous)?

Boredom. Seeking new challenges/excitement.

 

[Destiny's Player]

Spoiler

About desiring risk-less lives.

But anyway, that's an interesting thought indeed. Too bad I'm too asleep to think it.

 

[thomaslangston]

I doubt very long lived people would have too much of an effect on societal wealth distributions. You're basically only exchanging current generational wealth for individual wealth, and the savvy wealthy are rarely prevented that generational exchange. Additionally capitalism would drive down the costs while socialism would increase the distribution. I doubt the lag between rare and mundane procedures would be more than 50 years. I do agree that birth rates would fall off a cliff, and other societal upheaval would probably occur, even while social progress overall would stagnate. We'd have to totally rethink careers and retirement, as well as suicide.

 

[Vasious]

Interesting question as the leading causes of death in my country are self inflicted
that is to say from, smoking, drinking, poor diet, sedentary lifestyle, as well as suicide and from motor vehicles.

So would this ammortality prevent the ruining of human bodies anyway, so if you had a poor diet, smoked, drank, and never excises you would not develop diabetes, heart disease, cancer and all the health issues of being overweight?

Or just have people live in terrible unhealthy states but not die? Or will suicide go from number 2 to number 1 in causes of dealth

 

[Alucardex]

Think about it: if we do not allow ourselves to die, then after a while we stop reproducing as there is no incentive to do so. But that way there are no newer generations. If the old generation remians, that means that their beliefs, ethics, viewpoints, methods etc. will also remain. If we do not allow a new generation to take our place to bring their new viewpoints, we won't be able progress any further.

I disagree. You seem to think that people never change their views, yet that is not true.
And again: Is progress really the goal or rather a means to an end? If we live in an utopia do we really need progress anymore?

 

[Cyridius]

"So long as we live under our current socioeconomic system, such technologies will always be the preserve of the privileged few." - Some guy probably about a year before the invention of the internet when asked about potential internet like technologies.

I don't know how you can say this when we live in a world where over a billion people don't have access to electricity, tens of millions die a year as a result of hunger, lack of clean water and easily curable diseases. We're here discussing the universal drug(or treatment) which cures all ailments and aging, and you seriously think we'd all have access to it when billions on the planet as it exists don't even have access to basic healthcare.

The internet is an easy example for you to choose, of course we'd all have access to it; It's an extremely necessary tool for social function so we can work(Complex coordinated labour requires rapid and long distance communications and sharing of information). The infrastructure is there already and it's another avenue for profits, why wouldn't individuals be allowed access to the internet? Even so - billions on this planet still do not have even the most basic internet connections.

The social implications of a technology which would make humanity effectively immune to aging and disease would be massive. You'd have to be naive to think the general population could be allowed to afford it, let alone have free access to it, when even in the "developed world" there are millions who can't access relatively basic things.

 

[Otto of england]

Healthcare is a universal right (for example, in Italy any medical treatment is free for the poors and have a symbolic cost for the middle class and the rich) because not everyone get seriously ill at the same time: through taxes the State provides healthcare, that means you don't have to pay 100'000+ € for a heart surgery.
But if everyone needed during the same year a heart surgery, the whole country's GDP wouldn't make up for the cost of providing that service to 60 mln people.
Economically, universal healthcare is an universal healthcare insurance: you have a certain probability of getting ill during your life, so the State provide you with the coverage. The point is that the probability is low enough to allow it with just a 15% tax rate (for healthcare alone).

Let's say that providing body-enhancing surgeries would cost 10 mln € for the whole life of a person (300 years, since improved?). It would mean, taking Italy as an example, that you have to spend 10 mln x 60 mln = 600'000 billions €, or 400 times the GDP (and 60-80 times the wealth, both financial and physical, of the population). You can understand it would be impossible to provide such a technology to every person, even making it a universal right.
If the cost is 1 mln €, you would need 40 times the GDP and 6-8 times the wealth.
If it's 100k €, you would need 4 times the GDP and 0,6-0,8 times the wealth. And, over a 300 years life span, it would be possible to provide it as a universal right, making the whole population "immortal" in 30-40 years.

So: really much of the conclusion depends on the cost of such a technology. Even in a non-capitalistic society or in a capitalistic society with a state trying to provide it for free.

You are absolutely correct if we assume this comes before the obsolescence of human labour, but seeing as the majority of jobs are likely going to be taken by robot automation in the next 100-200 years I'm doubtful. What is far more likely is this would hit us in a post scarcity economy (labour is redundant and we can mine any element we want from an asteroid) in which case this would have no monetary cost associated with it, as monetary costs are redundant. In a society without the need for labour, without scarcity of resources, the only reason ammortality would not reach everyone are those in power preventing it from being so.

 

[Dregonoid]

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.

Assari from mass effect anybody? I would imagine lower productivity, more emphasis on the individual versus the collective. (if you have endless time why spend it on somebody who has the same?) Birthrate would plummet, look up the ted talk about birthrates and infant care as it is an interesting optimistic look at the future, as you could have kids tomorrow (if that was even a thing), combined with 100% effective birth control.