Morality and Immortality

It's nearly certain that one day human beings (or our successors) shall somehow overcome natural death. It could be in twenty years or it could be in twenty thousand years, but that fact of the matter is that, unless all sapient life on Earth is eradicated, it's going to happen.

There are a variety of ways to which human beings could best mortality:

The enzyme telomerase prevents bodily cells from dying and ultimately extends the life of the life-form. In 2008, a group of Spanish scientists managed to extend the lifespans of a population of genetically engineered mice. These mice, which produced tenfold the amount of telomerase that they would usually, lived about 50% longer each. Although high levels of the enzyme correlate with certain types of cancer, no negative effects were found in the mice. Dr. Maria Blasco, Spanish researcher who spearheaded the experiment, believed that existing cancer drugs could nullify this risk.

Now I usually don't like delving into transhumanism, but one of the main causes of that movement is the technological development of immortality. However, it's very likely that if or when immortality is achieved, it will be through the means of therapeutic cloning (replacement of dying bodily organs with healthy counterparts) or genetic engineering, such as the Spanish experiment mentioned above. Immortality by therapeutic cloning creates a conundrum much like the Ship of Theseus. If a man has managed to live seven hundred years of youth by replacing all of his organs, perhaps even his brain, is he still the same man? These organs and appendages would be all grown from his DNA, but an arm cultured through this method would be much like the arm of a twin. In many ways, this seven-hundred man would be no more than a clone of the original person. Genetic engineering is much less morally muddled, but does carry a lot of baggage, due to its close relationship with eugenics. It's not hard to imagine another dictator emerging who attempts to create a "master race" of humans through DNA.

Certainly the slowest and most uncertain possible way to extend human life, some scientists think that immortality is the final destination in the evolution of any species.

Finally, cryonics (not to be confused with the more definite science of cryogenics), or the process of freezing and thawing human beings like microwavable pizzas could probably lead to immortality. In normal cryonics, a person could live thousands of years or more in complete unconsciousness, as all brain activity has ceased. Although this could allow a human being to live millions of years, they wouldn't have experienced life any more than a non-popsicle. If anything, this form of effective immortality is just a way to postpone death indefinitely.


No matter the method, the prospect of immortality carries several philosophical and spiritual problems with it.

One could argue that, after besting death, a human being would become disconnected from life. An immortal person could perhaps eventually harbor some kind of god delusion (c wut i did thar?), believing themself to have the characteristics of a deity. As the characteristics of a god have never been fully determined, or the existence of a god never proven, you can't empirically convince somebody that they aren't a god. The disconnection from reality, mildly related to Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic, is a much more serious concern. Enough myths have told us that when humans grow proud and arrogant, it doesn't work well for them. On a realistic note, however, serious problems could arise if humans become immortal, particularly if only some people are "above death".

Selective immortality, or a situation where only a select few of people have somehow beaten death, could be terrible. Very many, if not the majority, of terrible leaders throughout history ended their reign by dying naturally. Just last year, Kim Jong-Il died of natural causes and passed his power to his son. Some of the less rational Roman emperors and later imperial kings, such as Ivan the Terrible of Russia, only left the throne because of death. Imagine if a person with immense power but terrible intentions would be allowed to live forever. It's likely that unheard-of atrocities could occur, over unimaginable stretches of time.

Ignoring leaders, if immortals become a distinct class of people, huge issues could arise. This new bourgeoisie could easily rule over the rest cruelly, especially if they believe themselves to be superior over other humans. As immortality probably wouldn't come cheap, the first humans to evade death would probably be the most wealthy.

The death of death carries with it a slew of problems. Although the development of true immortality may be the single most significant event in human history, it isn't necessarily a good thing. What do you think of immortality? Given the opportunity, would you live forever?

Originally Posted by Tavros

Immortality by therapeutic cloning creates a conundrum much like the Ship of Theseus. If a man has managed to live seven hundred years of youth by replacing all of his organs, perhaps even his brain, is he still the same man? These organs and appendages would be all grown from his DNA, but an arm cultured through this method would be much like the arm of a twin. In many ways, this seven-hundred man would be no more than a clone of the original person.

er, the thing is, the Ship of Theseus paradox exists even without therapeutic cloning. The average age of most of the cells in your body is 7 to 10 years. The human body is constantly being replaced as old cells die and new ones are born.

Certainly the slowest and most uncertain possible way to extend human life, some biologists think that immortality is the final destination in the evolution of any species.

this assumes that evolution has a purpose and a destination, which I'm sure you'll find most biologists would find ridiculous.

Finally, cryonics (not to be confused with the more definite science of cryogenics), or the process of freezing and thawing human beings like microwavable pizzas could probably lead to immortality. In normal cryonics, a person could live thousands of years or more in complete unconsciousness, as all brain activity has ceased. Although this could allow a human being to live millions of years, they wouldn't have experienced life any more than a non-popsicle. If anything, this form of effective immortality is just a way to postpone death indefinitely.

cryonics is hardly a method of immortality. As you say, it's more a method of postponing death, at least until a time in the future when death can be cured. Cryonics is used to prevent information-theoretic death with the assumption that at some point in the future you can be properly revived.

Given the opportunity, would you live forever?

absolutely.

I don't think that I would appreciate living forever.
I am sure that it would reach a point where being alive is simply mentally tiring and no longer fun.


I actually like the idea of death.

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

I don't think that I would appreciate living forever.
I am sure that it would reach a point where being alive is simply mentally tiring and no longer fun.


I actually like the idea of death.

I'm really conflicted about death. Although I'd love to live a really, really long life, just to have enough time to experience it all, never dying would just be so odd. I think that five hundred years, or maybe a bit more, would be the best human lifespan, provided that your body and mind don't degrade. Although ninety years or thereabouts is a very generous span of time, not all that much can be achieved comfortably in that period.

Originally Posted by Tavros

Certainly the slowest and most uncertain possible way to extend human life, some biologists think that immortality is the final destination in the evolution of any species.

These would be the biologists whose degrees are written in crayon, yes?

Originally Posted by Vulpes

These would be the biologists whose degrees are written in crayon, yes?

This man, primarily. However, he's a physician, not a biologist, which makes a lot of sense. Sorry for the misprint earlier.

When you think about it though, once you've achieved immortality, there isn't a lot of natural selection that can occur after that.

Originally Posted by Tavros

What do you think of immortality? Given the opportunity, would you live forever?

Yes. I don't think life would become any less precious with immortality. If anything, it could have the potential to be vastly richer...after all, how much more could I accomplish in a lifespan without the inevitability of aging and death?

However, I'd only want this kind of ageless immortality if I also had the option for euthanasia, if I so desire. After all, I wouldn't want to be stuck living an eternal life that causes unbearable suffering.

Originally Posted by Tavros

Certainly the slowest and most uncertain possible way to extend human life, some scientists think that immortality is the final destination in the evolution of any species.

Originally Posted by Tavros

This man, primarily. However, he's a physician, not a biologist, which makes a lot of sense. Sorry for the misprint earlier.

I'd have to disagree with him on that count - particularly considering that there are many species that have remained virtually unchanged for over a hundred million years ("living fossils"), while hardly being immortal as individuals.

@Astarael: Do you reckon that simply halting the anti-aging process and allowing yourself to die naturally would be considered euthanasia?

Originally Posted by Zecora

@Astarael: Do you reckon that simply halting the anti-aging process and allowing yourself to die naturally would be considered euthanasia?

Well, I suppose so, given the intention is ultimately to die (although it strikes me as being a very inefficient way of going about it - if I was in enough anguish to want death, I'd want to choose the fastest and least painful way possible).

Could someone explain why they wouldn't want to live forever? I've read these posts but I'm really not getting it. One of the core teachings of Christianity is eternal life. We really don't see any problem at all with it. Is it the idea of a secular eternal life that's not palatable?

Interesting, the hypotheticals of immportality. Spiritually I do not see an issue with it. I do not believe in a literal afterlife, but I believe that once we die our physical bodies are returned to the universe to be put back into the energy of the world. I'd love to live beyond my years and experience as much as possible. Philosophically I wonder, since matter cannot be destroyed, if the minds of people are also returned and become some sort of subconscious. But that's another discussion for another day.

I, uh, I've kind of always been drawn to the idea of Elves (at least, Tolkien Elves) being immune to the effects of aging. Only by destroying their bodies or undergoing massive amounts of stress can they actually die. They can live indefinitely, and if they so choose they can sail to Valinor and continue their eternal life there.

I would be thrilled if I were able to be an Elf. Or, more realistically, have medicines or cybernetics or something to keep me alive for as long as I should choose. There is so much to do in this world and so little time. All the books, stories, poems, movies, shows, music, places to go, people to meet, events to experience, there is so much to this life to do and not enough time to do them. Living forever would allow me to grow in experience and wisdom. It's a beautiful thing in my eyes.

And just thinking outside the box a bit, what about the other advances in technology? What about all the movies and books and art that has not yet created? What if in 2090 a person will be born who creates some of the most beautiful pieces of art that mankind has ever seen? I think eventually we will be colonizing planets and moons, perhaps even terraforming entire planets. What is out there in outer space to discover? Could we one day be able to witness a black hole consume a star?

If given the opportunity I would gladly live an eternal life.

Originally Posted by mattj

Could someone explain why they wouldn't want to live forever? I've read these posts but I'm really not getting it. One of the core teachings of Christianity is eternal life. We really don't see any problem at all with it. Is it the idea of a secular eternal life that's not palatable?

The issue here is that in terms of eternal life, a secular one is undesirable because eventually we will become tired of it all. Mentally and emotionally tired at the eternal stretch of years with the people you've known falling by the wayside until you're alone in your experiences and hollowed out by cynicism.

Religiously speaking, Christianity associates more than just life unending with Jesus, but also a spiritual fulfillment. An existence without weariness because you are constantly renewed.

Originally Posted by Great White North

The issue here is that in terms of eternal life, a secular one is undesirable because eventually we will become tired of it all. Mentally and emotionally tired at the eternal stretch of years with the people you've known falling by the wayside until you're alone in your experiences and hollowed out by cynicism.

There are two problems I have with that line of reasoning. Firstly, while this argument is always used by fictional immortal characters, not a single one of the authors who wrote those characters has any experience with immortality. Many people seem to take it as a fact, but it's just a science-fiction/fantasy trope, created probably to make everyone feel better about being mortal by having elves compliment them on how nice it must be.

Secondly, all this about being alone in your experiences and people falling by the wayside is based on the story of being immortal in a world of mortals. If "human beings" beat mortality as the first post suggests, your family and friends aren't going anywhere either.

If the opportunity comes, sign me up. I'm up for replacing every part of my body except my brain - I'm still not sure about that part.

Originally Posted by Cody

There are two problems I have with that line of reasoning. Firstly, while this argument is always used by fictional immortal characters, not a single one of the authors who wrote those characters has any experience with immortality. Many people seem to take it as a fact, but it's just a science-fiction trope, created probably to make everyone feel better about being mortal by having elves compliment them on how nice it must be.

I wasn't making that line of reasoning really.

Think of it this way, the brain is like a computer. There is only so much it can handle until it gets full and either has to delete old memories or not store new ones. At a certain point you will have experienced too much to the extent that you develop psychological issues.

Plus, even we mortal humans have a surprising number of people that get "world weary" by the time they're twenty years old. Given an unlimited lifespan, it's not improbable that a lot more people will grow to be that way. Humans share many similarities after all.

Secondly, all this about being alone in your experiences and people falling by the wayside is based on the story of being immortal in a world of mortals. If "human beings" beat mortality as the first post suggests, your family and friends aren't going anywhere either.

Until they get tired of living and get euthanized ^_^;.

Part of the reasoning is not that you are alone right away, but that eternity isn't really eternity and not a lot of people can cope with it.

If the opportunity comes, sign me up. I'm up for replacing every part of my body except my brain - I'm still not sure about that part.

I might as well.

Originally Posted by Great White North

Think of it this way, the brain is like a computer. There is only so much it can handle until it gets full and either has to delete old memories or not store new ones. At a certain point you will have experienced too much to the extent that you develop psychological issues.

That's both simplifying the matter too much and heavy guesswork. The brain has a lot of ways of dealing with memories and experiences and is so much more complicated than a computer that even with our powerful computer technology now, the idea of a human-level AI is still in the world of science fiction (largely because we still don't understand a lot of the brain itself yet) and when scientists give vague estimates as to when AI will reach that level they're of it happening like 30 years in the future, when we'll presumably also finally have our jetpacks. Unless you have sources that I am unaware of, that seems more like a guess at the workings of the human brain than a backable claim.

Plus, even we mortal humans have a surprising number of people that get "world weary" by the time they're twenty years old. Given an unlimited lifespan, it's not improbable that a lot more people will grow to be that way. Humans share many similarities after all.

There's no real connection between the idea that some young people are cynical and that, to quote you, "eventually we will become tired of it all", the key word here being "we". Some people are young and cynical or even suicidal, and some people are old and happy and would love to keep on going - that seems more a reflection of personalities than of age. You've provided an example of why some people may choose not to take the offer of immortality, but not of why this would mean that those who do want to live on would as a group all change their minds.

That's both simplifying the matter too much and heavy guesswork. The brain has a lot of ways of dealing with memories and experiences and is so much more complicated than a computer that even with our powerful computer technology now, the idea of a human-level AI is still in the world of science fiction (largely because we still don't understand a lot of the brain itself yet) and when scientists give vague estimates as to when AI will reach that level they're of it happening like 30 years in the future, when we'll presumably also finally have our jetpacks. Unless you have sources that I am unaware of, that seems more like a guess at the workings of the human brain than a backable claim.

Weiten, W. & McCann, D. (2010). Psychology: Themes & Variations, Second Canadian Edition. Toronto: Thomson Nelson.

I suppose I could go into neuron formation and neural networks as they have implications on memory, but that's a tad too much writing for me ^_^;.

There's no real connection between the idea that some young people are cynical and that, to quote you, "eventually we will become tired of it all", the key word here being "we". Some people are young and cynical or even suicidal, and some people are old and happy and would love to keep on going - that seems more a reflection of personalities than of age. You've provided an example of why some people may choose not to take the offer of immortality, but not of why this would mean that those who do want to live on would as a group all change their minds.

People change.

I'm not implying that as a group, people would change their minds. But individually, one by one, it's highly probable that people would eventually chose to stop being immortal. As within a set group of family and friends, each successive person that chooses to die will impact the rest of the group in a negative way (at least negative in regards to enjoying life).

Maybe you could just write the major stuff down so you don't have to worry about forgetting it. Maybe heaven will be lined wall to wall with books?

Originally Posted by Great White North

Weiten, W. & McCann, D. (2010). Psychology: Themes & Variations, Second Canadian Edition. Toronto: Thomson Nelson.

I was hoping more for a quote from a source in regards to when memories would overload a brain, rather than a link to a textbook - I don't have access to the book to see if it makes these claims itself or if it is your own claim or if it is actually a thrilling novel about four children and a dog.

While I don't doubt that eventually the brain will have troubles and memory loss issues, my question is whether (without the interference of aging and afflictions like Alzhiemer's) that eventuality is in the realm of 150 years or 1500 years or 15000 years, and to what extent.

People change.

I'm not implying that as a group, people would change their minds. But individually, one by one, it's highly probable that people would eventually chose to stop being immortal. As within a set group of family and friends, each successive person that chooses to die will impact the rest of the group in a negative way (at least negative in regards to enjoying life).

But isn't it the case that a lot of the time when someone wishes to stop living it's due to biological rather than psychological factors? Things like depression (which is chemical, though many treat it like it's just psychological), or the symptoms associated with the deterioration of your body? With these things able to be detected and treated, would the average human mind ever really turn contrary to its base animal goal of survival?

I dunno, Elves seemed to accept the fact that eventually their kindred would wish to return to Valinor. They didn't seem to fret too much over it, knowing that they would join them one day. As a Christian (GWN), would you not believe the same?

(that is, replace Valinor with heaven)