Thread: Should we strive to live forever?

If there is one thing we can recognize about this universe/world, then it's that nothing ever stops changing. And this changing is basically moving. And since nothing will be able to change without moving. Then what we call time is basically moving. So what we see as time is really not time, but merely movement.

This movement is everywhere and it's changing faster for what ever lives then what it does for a car or a stone that is keept in a safer environment. But for a living being and various different species, we are effected much faster towards this change of dissolvment/death then for example a tree. So the tree wich have no mind or feelings (at least what we can asume) have much more slowed down dissolvment process if compared to any animal or human. And I think that universe have it's reason to work in just that way.

So since a tree wont feel any kind of pain or feeling, then there wont be any pain either. Meanwhile any animal or human could live their whole life in suffering if they where brought up in the wrong area or with a critical disability. Imagine if some companys got their hands on some kind of supermedicine that made people imortal. The rich companys in the poor countrys could give this medecine to their best working slaves, and keep them imprisoned to work for the price of them getting a little glimpse of freedom or sunlight for a moment. If they kept working hard all day. Imagine what kind of hell, physically or mentaly. That humans could inflict on eachother, more so than we already do now today... I believe that everyone have the great growth potential to love and humbleness thanks to that there are something like death. Maybe that we could become imortal pure consciousness after our death. But as it is now in this kind of life form, then I dont think that imortality would be such a great idea.

With that said, I dont have an deathwish for any living being that enjoys life right now. Death will comes when it comes either way.

I don't think that immortality will change much at all.

The reason I say this is that along a technological ladder you will find that the "identity" of any one human is decreased. Where a single man used to be renowned for his ability to make shoes, another was adored for his royal blood. The traits and skills, the experiences and memories are what defines a person, to themselves and to others. As technology improves the quality of life increases, the demand for work decreases, access to commodities and activities becomes limitless. With each of these improvements comes a side effect, to be specific, a blurring of the identity of humans. One man can be anything he wishes, through science the very notion of achievements can be abolished as any of them can be accomplished by anyone, or even quicker by a machine.

This is the society we strive for, perfect equality, entirely automated, flawless humans. There is no difference between one human or another except for his time of birth and what laboratory he was grown in.
What can be the result of such a situation, most likely an unrivaled shift from living for external achievements towards living for internal ones. Essentially living for experience. In which case immortality only lightly affects the hugely different world that might exist.

Of course we need not restrain ourselves to resembling humans, but then what would we become? In the perfect utopian future we either lose personal identity, or our human traits.

Ok done!!
To clarify, this is merely one of the possible outcomes of our future. I'm just regurgitating what I have find would happen if we were to follow a course of equality and prosperity. By any means we may never become an automated, fair or even brain altering society. Nor does the invention of immortality have to coincide with other technological advances, though I think it's likely.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that if we become immortal, we will eventually not be considered 'human'. If we are all around a billion years from now, human is just going to be an origin or ancestry, what we are at that time is definitely not going to physically be what we are today. However, that isn't even a minor concern for me. Human is just one point on our evolutionary pathway.

We are very childish and naive about life and reality. And I mean this both as individuals, and collectively as a species. Individually, we are fed by the human group we are inserted in with all the aspects, true or less true, closer or farther from source. This concepts build up our collective mind and all possibilities available within this structure.

We always think in terms of what will we gain from any action we take. It is a childish concept that we are learning to erase from our actions throughout our evolution. It is well known that life takes big evolutionary leaps when its components work in cooperation rather then for egoistic goals.

We tend also to think in Love in a narrow limited form. Love tends to be mainly attributed to the subjective, emotional and procreative interactions between male and female. But this is just a mechanism reflecting our dual meta-physical dimension inbuilt in the lower matrix within the greater underlying dimension. There are higher forms of Love, that may and may not involve sexual motifs.

All this said to point out the lack of spiritual progress we have achieved so far as a collective mind. We are Christians, but it is only a name. Few try to really apply the precepts taught by the Master. We are children still. It would be very dangerous to grant children with individual physical immortality without having achieved spiritual evolution as a group. The chance of spreading evil, psychopathy through the physical Universe would be much greater.

I don't want to live forever. If humanity strives for such a goal, those without the desire should be allowed to be left out, obviously.

The answer too relies pretty heavily on the possible quality of this infinite life. If I continue to live despite feeling tortured and starving to non-death, why would I choose to willingly perpetuate such an existence, especially if this is a widespread occurrence for those other immortals. If we can also find a way to eliminate our suffering (I would imagine all of this being achieved with nanotechnology and an advanced understanding of the human perception and how the brain causes distress, feelings of pain, hunger, illness, etc. and we can directly enhance or modulate and stimulate brain activity via electricity or magnetic waves or something. If you could be "perfect", if those rare times in your life where things do seem perfect right in that moment could be guaranteed as how you would feel for pretty much the rest of existence, then perhaps sure, I would maybe be willing to live forever, or perhaps to extend my life. However, that's a pretty tough guarantee. If this is not also strived for, in my opinion the strive for immortality itself is useless except in promoting advancement of technology in improving human life.

Originally Posted by snoop

I don't want to live forever. If humanity strives for such a goal, those without the desire should be allowed to be left out, obviously.

The answer too relies pretty heavily on the possible quality of this infinite life. If I continue to live despite feeling tortured and starving to non-death, why would I choose to willingly perpetuate such an existence, especially if this is a widespread occurrence for those other immortals. If we can also find a way to eliminate our suffering (I would imagine all of this being achieved with nanotechnology and an advanced understanding of the human perception and how the brain causes distress, feelings of pain, hunger, illness, etc. and we can directly enhance or modulate and stimulate brain activity via electricity or magnetic waves or something. If you could be "perfect", if those rare times in your life where things do seem perfect right in that moment could be guaranteed as how you would feel for pretty much the rest of existence, then perhaps sure, I would maybe be willing to live forever, or perhaps to extend my life. However, that's a pretty tough guarantee. If this is not also strived for, in my opinion the strive for immortality itself is useless except in promoting advancement of technology in improving human life.

But to erase all forms of human suffering would not be possible. Say we cured all disease, eradicated hunger and even physical pain: there are other forms of suffering that need to be taken into account. Emotional suffering for example. There's no way to remove this without changing the entire psychological, or perhaps "spiritual" makeup of what it is to be human. I think that to a certain extent, suffering is needed in order for us to grow and mature as individuals. Obviously not the level of suffering that goes on today with people suffering extreme poverty and cruelty in third world countries and middle eastern countries, but I think that would need to be untampered with, lest we create an apathetic race.

Anyway, here's another interesting video about this topic:

That's Jason Silvia, the same guy from the video in the OP. He's an immortalist, or more generally a transhumanist, and if you do any digging on the internet you're likely to find a lot of stuff from him which is all interesting. I'm currently reading "The Denial of Death" by Ernest Becker, a philosopher he talks about a lot in his videos. I'd recommend it if this topic interests you and I'm also considering reading "The Immortalist" by Alan Harrington.

Originally Posted by Araishu

I think that to a certain extent, suffering is needed in order for us to grow and mature as individuals.

Just curious--what do you mean by "grow and develop?" I am fairly certain you do not mean in a biological sense. It seems to me that emotional/psychological "development" is merely more thoughts thinking, and not so much any person "growing"--whatever that means? Is it possible for a being who will ultimately die and decompose to emotionally/psychologically "grow" in any way at all? And furthermore, if all of us thinkers are going to die, who is it that judges this growth?

Originally Posted by ThreeCat

Just curious--what do you mean by "grow and develop?" I am fairly certain you do not mean in a biological sense. It seems to me that emotional/psychological "development" is merely more thoughts thinking, and not so much any person "growing"--whatever that means? Is it possible for a being who will ultimately die and decompose to emotionally/psychologically "grow" in any way at all? And furthermore, if all of us thinkers are going to die, who is it that judges this growth?

Psychological growth is just as important, if not more important, than biological growth in terms of what defines a human being. There is nothing that states that things which will one day cease to exist cannot grow emotionally/psychologically. In fact, there is no logic to that statement at all seeing as the only way we experience emotion and human psychology is through life. As for those who judge this growth, it may be ourselves most of the time, our parents maybe as we make the transition from child to adulthood, anybody who has known you for a period of time can judge your growth as a person. To suggest that something cannot grow or develop due to its ephemeral nature is slightly absurd to say the least. Take music for example, you experience the changes in notes and pitch as the song plays out, yet once the song is over it cannot be heard in the same way again. That does not mean to say that it cannot progress.

The notion of infinity is paradoxical after all; it's simply another one of "man's" concepts that may or may not have any bearing on the universe in a scientific perspective or even an existential perspective. In the past and currently the idea of "infinity" is subjected to postulation, disputation and conjecture; so in my opinion we should be cautious or weary of our own alacrity in regards to subscribing to biological immortality. I do believe humanity should strive for attempts to combat senescence along with attempts of the edification of humanity in regards to environmentalism and intellectualism in order for the masses to fully grasp the implications of our species obtaining biological "immortality".

Originally Posted by Aristocles

The notion of infinity is paradoxical after all; it's simply another one of "man's" concepts that may or may not have any bearing on the universe in a scientific perspective or even an existential perspective. In the past and currently the idea of "infinity" is subjected to postulation, disputation and conjecture; so in my opinion we should be cautious or weary of our own alacrity in regards to subscribing to biological immortality. I do believe humanity should strive for attempts to combat senescence along with attempts of the edification of humanity in regards to environmentalism and intellectualism in order for the masses to fully grasp the implications of our species obtaining biological "immortality".

Firstly, it's weird how many common interests we have, almost like looking in a mirror. Although that could be because we have very similar DPs and an interest in Ernest Becker

However, I do not speak of eternity in a literal sense. I believe that one day every man must cease to exist whether his life has been extended by the wonders of modern medicine or not. I speak of forever from the point of view of a mortal, temporary being with no way to visualize infinity in a literal sense. Perhaps if we did live in an immortal society there would be more interest in the conservation and protection of our planet as it no longer becomes a case of "this problem does not affect me because I will be dead by then" as is the attitude of a lot of politicians and leaders.

The problem may not only be educational but also spiritual if you will. I find that those who place importance on the conservation of the planet and those with a true understanding and appreciation of life happen to be more compassionate and do not care much for material wealth. In order to have a functioning and sustainable society, every person must understand their predicament and be brought to the same level of thinking. Scientific thought and understanding may eventually become a religion in itself, and will probably have to for us to move forward.

Originally Posted by Araishu

Firstly, it's weird how many common interests we have, almost like looking in a mirror. Although that could be because we have very similar DPs and an interest in Ernest Becker

To be quite candid - I was heavily reluctant to post, however with your response I am glad that I did.

Originally Posted by Araishu

The problem may not only be educational but also spiritual if you will. I find that those who place importance on the conservation of the planet and those with a true understanding and appreciation of life happen to be more compassionate and do not care much for material wealth. In order to have a functioning and sustainable society, every person must understand their predicament and be brought to the same level of thinking. Scientific thought and understanding may eventually become a religion in itself, and will probably have to for us to move forward.

An arduous path (not to seem pessimistic) our species will endure to achieve a sliver of the aspirations of a utopian society - one perhaps most likely ruled by the sacrosanct of a scientific foundation, an intellectual moral compass (designed by us), unification [(recognition of our commonalities as humans) (destruction of many demarcations ex. national boundaries)]. But, this potentially could very detrimental if not executed effectively - you can imagine that many will contort science into some form of regressive perverted dogmatic religion (;scientific fundamentalism). We will have to establish a clear demarcation of fundamental scientific truths, critical thinking/free thought/healthy skepticism and contorted scientific dogma. Do not be mistaken I am not disagreeing with you - I stand by you when you state "scientific thought and understanding may eventually become a religion in itself, and will probably have to for us to move forward"; I'm stating that observing our current 3 major religions their exists spectrums from (ex. Christianity) agnostic Christianity to moderate Christianity to fundamental Christianity. Given antecedent events in regards to truths and beliefs it is not to far-fetch to believe science will be subjected to the very same spectrum ... which is why I stand by you when you state science may become a religion and why it would be extremely prudent of us to create the aforementioned distinctions.

Originally Posted by Aristocles

An arduous path (not to seem pessimistic) our species will endure to achieve a sliver of the aspirations of a utopian society - one perhaps most likely ruled by the sacrosanct of a scientific foundation, an intellectual moral compass (designed by us), unification [(recognition of our commonalities as humans) (destruction of many demarcations ex. national boundaries)]. But, this potentially could very detrimental if not executed effectively - you can imagine that many will contort science into some form of regressive perverted dogmatic religion (;scientific fundamentalism). We will have to establish a clear demarcation of fundamental scientific truths, critical thinking/free thought/healthy skepticism and contorted scientific dogma. Do not be mistaken I am not disagreeing with you - I stand by you when you state "scientific thought and understanding may eventually become a religion in itself, and will probably have to for us to move forward"; I'm stating that observing our current 3 major religions their exists spectrums from (ex. Christianity) agnostic Christianity to moderate Christianity to fundamental Christianity. Given antecedent events in regards to truths and beliefs it is not to far-fetch to believe science will be subjected to the very same spectrum ... which is why I stand by you when you state science may become a religion and why it would be extremely prudent of us to create the aforementioned distinctions.

Yes, there has been a similar occurrence in the past where science was not its own religion but incorporated into religion. Specifically, the catholic church. While some might think this a good thing, it certainly was not. It did not mean more acceptance for science but more censorship by Catholicism. If a theory contradicted the church's ideas, it was not scientific. The specific example I'm thinking of is what happened with heliocentrism. However, I believe that with a good understanding of the scientific method will come critical thinking skills and rather than simply following scientific teachings out of faith, they follow out of the evidence gathered and numerous experiments done to prove/disprove theories. That is quite a fundamental difference. But there may still be cults that form around pseudoscience and things on that spectrum so I guess it will never be a utopia of free and critical thinkers.

Also, with an immortal population, the next Albert Einstein may be around for a lot longer than Einstein was and if you think about the ground breaking theories he made within 60 years, imagine what a person like that may come up with if they had thousands of years of scientific experience that they have learned and relearned.

EDIT: It seems like I am suggesting that a utopia would be godless but I want to make it clear that that's not what I'm implying. I am merely advocating a scientific mindset. Religions of today and science do not have to be exclusive, so long as they respect scientific truths. When it comes to matters of God, we may never know the answer so I believe it is important to maintain an open mind about such things.

Originally Posted by Araishu

Also, with an immortal population, the next Albert Einstein may be around for a lot longer than Einstein was and if you think about the ground breaking theories he made within 60 years, imagine what a person like that may come up with if they had thousands of years of scientific experience that they have learned and relearned.

EDIT: It seems like I am suggesting that a utopia would be godless but I want to make it clear that that's not what I'm implying. I am merely advocating a scientific mindset. Religions of today and science do not have to be exclusive, so long as they respect scientific truths. When it comes to matters of God, we may never know the answer so I believe it is important to maintain an open mind about such things.

What a ecstatic circumstance to envisage; that amount of time to acquire more knowledge and evolve our world views/perspectives.

Very true - many individuals will be retentive when it comes to what they adamantly adhere to such as religion; even if evidence has been presented to prove their truths and beliefs erroneous. I also agree with you that even if many adopt a scientific mindset they will choose to retain their belief in god; which is not necessarily an issue. I say "not necessarily" because though liberal or moderate religious beliefs and science are not exclusive ... fundamentalism and or conservatism (;regarding religion of course) are.