Is immortality immoral?

Is it immoral to live forever? With advances in science relating to stem cell research and nanotechnology, it's very possible that in a few hundred years, immortality will be achievable. In this thread we discuss whether or not immortality (either that of the individual, or all of humankind) is immoral.

Some points you may like to consider:

With only limited space and resources on our small planet (or whatever floating balls we may have inhabited by this point in the future), is our own immortality disallowing other potential lives, or adding to overpopulation?

It's harder for the young to displace the old if the old stop getting out of the way. Does this lead to an ultra conservative, ageist society?

Natural order dictates that we live for a limited time. Is it immoral to "play god", or will our long lives lead to an overall decreased quality of life?

Is everyone allowed access to this age-defying technology, or only the rich/privileged?

For great scientists or thinkers or leaders who's extended lifespan could improve the quality of life for others, is it the immoral to not grant them longer life spans? Are there people that deserve immortality more then others?

Well, I frankly think that true immortality will never be possible no matter what advances we have but for the sake of argument I'll go along.

I'd say that it would basically cause a catastrophic over population. We would either have to colonize numerous habitable planets to spread out our population, or stop producing offspring.

I don't possibly see how anyone could answer yes, since that would necessitate picking a time at which it's no longer moral to live, in other words, saying "Alright when you get this old we're going to have to kill you."

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pong

We would either have to colonize numerous habitable planets to spread out our population, or stop producing offspring.

Keep going; is it right of us to spread our species over who-knows how many different worlds, likely damaging those planets the same way we've damaged this one? Is it right of future beings to stop bringing new people into the world so that they can prolong their own lives?

See, I would love to live for ridiculously long periods of time: I was reading up on some of these super centurions, and actually felt slightly jealous that their lives had spread back all the way into the 19th century. The things you could experience with a longer life span. But then I felt a pang of guilt on wondering whether my own long life would prevent future people from experiencing life themselves.This was the inspiration for this thread.

overpopulation isn't a big problem. Just stop making more babies.

I think by the time we have achieved immortality we would probably have some pretty effective birth control methods.

but even before that, we still have a lot of room left. Build bigger cities.

Originally Posted by Sam

Keep going; is it right of us to spread our species over who-knows how many different worlds, likely damaging those planets the same way we've damaged this one? Is it right of future beings to stop bringing new people into the world so that they can prolong their own lives?

I'm not quite sure destroying planets is a moral issue. Planets don't have any rights. Neither do people who don't exist.

Sadly, not everyone has the same view on the rights and "souls" of those who don't exist. "Just because someone doesn't exist yet doesn't give you the right to deny them said existence". Damn you religion, you get in the way of functioning society.

Originally Posted by Prof. Fish

I'm not quite sure destroying planets is a moral issue. Planets don't have any rights. Neither do people who don't exist.

Well, I'm not quite sure morality is about law. It's not about rights; why do you think that people argue until their heads explode over abortion? Because they feel it is wrong, immoral, unethical, et cetera, to terminate a life before it is given the chance to live, even though neither sperm nor eggs nor embryos have rights .

Why do people argue that it is unethical to pollute our planet? Party for the planet itself, whether for religious reasons or not, and partly because we know that future generations (yes, people that don't yet exist) will have to use this same planet, and it is neither fair nor just that we give it to them broken.

It's a slightly abstract way of looking at morality, but bear with it for a moment.

I don't possibly see how anyone could answer yes, since that would necessitate picking a time at which it's no longer moral to live, in other words, saying "Alright when you get this old we're going to have to kill you."

Not really. Just that effects of living for long periods of time can be considered immoral, not that a specific age itself is immoral.

And yeah, it many well be that future society deems it unacceptable to live beyond an certain point, the same that we now argue that abortion before a certain time is immoral. Purely hypothetical, but nonetheless your argument doesn't make much sense.

If we do end up finding a way to preserve our bodies forever with stem cells the problem would be replacing brain cells. Even if we could replace brain cells, the ones containing our memories would die eventually and over time we would lose our memories and become a different people; thus rendering immortality useless.

Originally Posted by Sam

Why do people argue that it is unethical to pollute our planet? Party for the planet itself, whether for religious reasons or not, and partly because we know that future generations (yes, people that don't yet exist) will have to use this same planet, and it is neither fair nor just that we give it to them broken.

We only care about the planet because we inhabit it. If we found a way to dump our waste and pollutants into the Sun then I can't see any real moral problem with it. We also care about future generations because if they die out then our species goes extinct. One of the most basic instincts of all life forms is the propagation of the species. If people were immortal then it would basically be impossible for our species to go extinct naturally. Future generations wouldn't matter.

the way I see it, there's nothing "immoral" about living forever.

If it's possible to live forever without causing damage to future generation and worlds then it's not immoral.

if we could live forever, we wouldn't need future generations.

Originally Posted by Tacheon Black

Sadly, not everyone has the same view on the rights and "souls" of those who don't exist. "Just because someone doesn't exist yet doesn't give you the right to deny them said existence". Damn you religion, you get in the way of functioning society.

I don't think many religions prescribe morals in the case of souls that don't exist. In general Christianity, at least, the soul isn't believed to be formed until conception.

Originally Posted by Sam

Well, I'm not quite sure morality is about law. It's not about rights; why do you think that people argue until their heads explode over abortion? Because they feel it is wrong, immoral, unethical, et cetera, to terminate a life before it is given the chance to live, even though neither sperm nor eggs nor embryos have rights .

Pro-lifers don't protest abortion because they believe fetuses will have a human right to life, they think that fetus already have a human right to life. Embryos, too, thus the controversy over embryonic stem cell research

Why do people argue that it is unethical to pollute our planet? Party for the planet itself, whether for religious reasons or not, and partly because we know that future generations (yes, people that don't yet exist) will have to use this same planet, and it is neither fair nor just that we give it to them broken.

I would say that many of our advancements that have caused depletion of planet resources have worked to the benefit of future generations. Of course, it's still stupid to recklessly destroy our resources, and thus I favor strong devotion to environmentalist efforts. I simply find the idea that nature is somehow an ideal good, and thus destroying it is some sort of evil, to be flawed.

Not really. Just that effects of living for long periods of time can be considered immoral, not that a specific age itself is immoral.

And yeah, it many well be that future society deems it unacceptable to live beyond an certain point, the same that we now argue that abortion before a certain time is immoral. Purely hypothetical, but nonetheless your argument doesn't make much sense.

If someone said to me that immortality or unnaturally long age was immoral, I would ask "Alright then, so living to be 1000 would be immoral?" When they said yes, I would say "Alright, so living to 999 would be immoral?". I would continue to count down until they said no. Then I would push them further to give me an exact time when extending one's life becomes immoral, then ask them why that time.

Of course, I doubt they would be able to come up with a good answer. We cannot determine the exact moment when someone becomes "to old to live", or for that matter, the exact moment when a fetus suddenly dons the protections of human right to life. You can't be "sort of alive", either you are considered human and are subject to moral protection, or you aren't. There must be an exact moment where you "make the switch" then, right? But nobody can determine when that is. Therefore, I don't believe people should be dabbling in death at all in these instances.

Of course not. As for overpopulation, if immortality came along, so too would transhumanist alterations to the human species come in to play. We would slowly lose the ability to reproduce as we become something beyond human. Some may argue that we would be "cheating unborn children out of life," but that is the same silly (And completely wrong) argument that the anti-abortion crowd uses; that argument should just be disregarded.

Same thing with the "new people leads to new ideas" argument; with unlimited lifespans and the unlimited increase in scientific and technological power, we would be able to augment ourselves to be much smarter than a normal human being might be.

As for "playing God," this is irrelevant, as we cannot prove that God exists. Any statements about "playing God" or "going against nature" in debates like this should just be disregarded; it's nonsensical.

As for the expense of the age-defying technology, I see it being affordable only by a small number of people at first. However, it would quickly become affordable to most people in a time period that wouldn't last longer than a single generation.

There really isn't much of an argument against transhuman augmentations/immortatity from a logical standpoint; from an emotional standpoint, sure, but basing one's morality primarily on emotion rather than reason is wrong.

Originally Posted by Sam

Is it immoral to live forever? With advances in science relating to stem cell research and nanotechnology, it's very possible that in a few hundred years, immortality will be achievable. In this thread we discuss whether or not immortality (either that of the individual, or all of humankind) is immoral.

No. Just no.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Originally Posted by BoJanglz

No. Just no.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Well actually, Ray Kurzweil has predicted the singularity for awhile now. And although it has yet to come true, I believe in it.

This is all morality is; arbitrary assigned, man made ideals. Why is it immoral to kick a baby in the face to death? You can't give an explanation that isn't related to further morality (eg. "Because it would die", or "Because you shouldn't kill babies" or "Because it will feel pain" et cetera). Morals are abstract, fundamental, unexplainable concepts. That doesn't make them meaningless. But perhaps I'm being naive and one day I'll grow up to be like you cool SD nihilists

My point is, it's pointless to dismiss ideas or arguments because they are based on morality. Fish, for example, say's, No, it's not immoral, but also morality doesn't exist because arguments based on morality (such as our destruction of the planet idea) are meaningless.

We only care about the planet because we inhabit it. If we found a way to dump our waste and pollutants into the Sun then I can't see any real moral problem with it.

Dumping them into the sun and thus destroying them? That's cool. Dumping them onto, say, the moon, or another planet, however, I would have a moral issue with.

Some may argue that we would be "cheating unborn children out of life," but that is the same silly (And completely wrong) argument that the anti-abortion crowd uses; that argument should just be disregarded.

You could also say that masturbation is mass murder. Every two human beings contains within them hundreds of potential lives. I'm not arguing that we should start breeding farms to make sure the highest number of people possible get to experience life. But it's something entirely different when you consider that there would be a fixed number of living people, and very few new people would ever come into the world. Yes, I would have a moral issue with that.

Speaking of silly arguments, though, you can't dismiss everything based on the idea that, if we've achived immortality, then we must have also developed every other possible technology, such as being able to augment ourselves to be creative enough to fill the creative hole left by having no new humans made.

No. Just no.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Thanks for the productive comment, bro, please come again.

Originally Posted by Andross

Some may argue that we would be "cheating unborn children out of life," but that is the same silly (And completely wrong) argument that the anti-abortion crowd uses

No, it's not. Anti-Abortionists believe that human life, at least as far as the the right-to-life is concerned, begins at conception (generally). They do not condemn abortion because they believe fetuses will become human, they condemn it because they believe fetuses are human.

Originally Posted by Sam

But it's something entirely different when you consider that there would be a fixed number of living people, and very few new people would ever come into the world.

Since we don't live long enough to experience more than a few generations of people anyway, it wouldn't matter. You speak as if you won't be able to see new people enter the world while we won't be seeing very many fully developed new people entering the world naturally.

Speaking of silly arguments, though, you can't dismiss everything based on the idea that, if we've achived immortality, then we must have also developed every other possible technology, such as being able to augment ourselves to be creative enough to fill the creative hole left by having no new humans made.

Why do you believe that there would be no new scientific advancements or no new artistic creations if there were no new people, anyway? You speak as if each individual only has a couple of great things to bring to society before their death, instead of accomplishing a variety of things. The only reason an individual would slow down and no longer offer creativity or ideas to the world is because that person would grow old and die; if we developed a way for ourselves to be unaging, we wouldn't grow old, we wouldn't naturally die, and we would be able to continue exploring the human imagination for eternity.

Think of how much the great thinkers of the past would have accomplished (And would continue to accomplish) if they continued living to this day.