AtomSmasher

I seriously doubt that one could ever exhaust all the possible hobbies or studies. As technology progresses, so does the rate of discovery and innovation. Look how far we have come in just 100 years. Advancement is occurring at an accellerating rate. I wouldn't be surprised if it is an exponential curve as long as population and economic growth remain constant (which would require expansion to other planets and solar systems). If that is the case (and at this point there is no reason to doubt) then the horizons of human potential would expand into infinity. I believe that if you lived that long you would have to live in complete isolation to ever be bored, else you would be forever busy.

HeatherD

This concept, that technological advancement is on some ever increasing growth curve, gets bandied about a lot but I don't think that it's historically accurate. It's also not sustainable.

First, some things just can't be advanced without serendipitous discoveries. Some discoveries, no matter how much you try or how much money you throw at them, won't happen without pure luck.

Second, there are likely some technologies that will never be developed. While Sci-Fi authors like to throw in concepts like warp travel or wormholes, it's unlikely that the human race will travel to other planets in the next few hundred years. We may never be able to break or even get near the light-speed limit. I think if you look at the history of human travel on the ocean, it took thousands of years before we developed ocean liners. The same will happen to interstellar travel, 2 or 300 years from now humans aren't going to be flitting around the galaxy, let alone the local neighborhood.

Third, unless human society changes radically, I don't see even being virtually immortal will change things for most people. The majority of people have only a few hobbies and even with the free time available to retired persons, they don't explore every hobby available to them. Many people would likely stick to the few hobbies they have and probably get very bored after a few hundred years, certainly after thousands of years they would be wishing for an end. I known some people that got tired of life after only 80 to 100 years. Certainly if they were still young they wouldn't be tired of life, they would still be working. If you live to 50,000 years old (quite a short time in geological terms), how many of those years should you work?

Fourth, while technology seems to be getting more advanced, there are plenty of other things that, rather than advancing, are very stagnant. In some areas like art, fashion, literature, the humanities, there seems to only be a limited number of themes. Even if not totally stagnant many of these non-tech areas find limited success when they stretch into more radical areas. Unless human thinking and social attitudes change radically, I doubt we will ever be ready for immortality.

IMHO

AtomSmasher

The difference is that now more people are actively searching for new discoveries and investing a large amount of resources in refining things already discovered. Previously the costs involved in science were prohibitive.

I don't care about what sci-fi says I'm not talking about warp drives or wormholes. We have the technology now to travel to nearby planets, so you're statement that "it's unlikely that the human race will travel to other planets in the next few hundred years." seems far too pessimistic to me. There may indeed be social factors that inhibit extraterrestrial expansion however if a large country such as the United States devoted a large amount of its budget to reaching other planets it would happen in short order. NASA had plans for a fully functioning sustained presence on Mars for an initial cost of 40 billion dollars and over a billion dollars in annual sustainment costs, all with conventional technology. Congress determined the mission too expensive but it wasn't out of our capability. Few things have we actually invested considerable sums in and come up empty handed.

Also consider the factors limiting ocean travel at the time. For the past 2000 years people were content to hunt and farm for subsistence but as the population increased, so did the need for expansion. Ocean travel became economical because human life became more productive: instead of investing half your day searching for food we developed economies whereby food was cheaply available and you actually had time to invest in education, industry, or specifically - projects such as designing or building ships. How much time do you invest in food and shelter now? An hour a day at most? How much time do you spend travelling between important destinations? An hour or two at most? How much longer will you live with modern medicine curing that cancer that would have killed you at 35 so you can live to 65? It's just a matter of scale, nobody said anything about flitting around the galaxy, but there is no telling what will happen in 1000s of years.

Sure, maybe. Some people get tired of life after 15 or 20 years. I have no doubts that someone who enjoys their life would want to live as long as possible. For the most part people who survive 80 or 100 years know that they have little time left so probably won't take up any new pursuits. If they could expect to be in good health for another 100 years then I believe they would. To answer your question, if you lived 50,000 years, you should work as much or as little as you want too. Why do you ask?

What a shame. I had no idea that art and fashion were stagnating. Certainly we should immediately get some of our best people on it before art and fashion fall too far behind. I noticed we are also behind on basket weaving and swing dancing. SO WHAT? What good has art ever done for me? I like music, but that seems to be developing quite well. I'm not sure what your point is here or how it even relates to human immortality at all.

HeatherD

I'm saying that sometimes things just aren't discovered, they are accidents. Sure if you put enough manpower, time and money into, say digging for lost cities, you might just find all of them. The same isn't true for discovering say, the first room-temperature superconductor. That may not even be possible but if it is, it is impossible to predict when it might occur. It could happen tomorrow or 200 years from now. If it happens tomorrow it will change a lot of things.

Sorry, I should have said "other solar systems" But yes, I am a bit of a pessimist and I don't think we will go to Mars for at least 20 more years (give or take a few). My reasoning on this is that I think travel to Mars will not have the impetus that going to the Moon did back in the '60s. We mainly went to the Moon because of the political climate.

While we could travel to Mars, there are still a number of technological hurdles to face. We could overcome those but only if we are pushed. I don't see the US or any other country making such an enormous push to go some place that the majority of the public doesn't care about going to.

I see the earth getting very overcrowded soon and problems that arise from that growth will take center stage long before we travel to another solar system. Perhaps that overcrowding might be what we need to get us of this rock.

(*If your wondering why I'm a pessimist, it's because I was there. I saw my heros go to the Moon and then the whole space program was essentially folded up. I think we have done some great things since, but not enough. We don't even have the tech to go back to the Moon without a lot of money and brains being sent to NASA. Many of the people that got us there are dead and we would have to almost start from scratch.)

Yes, ocean travel was limited long ago. Space travel is a much, much, greater challenge and unlike our ancestors we won't be looking for spices. The reason I mentioned sci-fi was that without the ability to travel quickly to other solar systems, it's unlikely that we will have any reasons (in the near future) to travel those distances.

Yes, economies of scale are important, but until we find worlds worth going to, economically speaking, we won't try very hard.

Okay, so you decide to retire at 65, then what? I hope you have a really good portfolio!

Seriously, there are plenty of people that hate the jobs they have. Many of those people might have the time to get better jobs but there will always (IMO) be some jobs that some people won't want to do for 10,000 years before they retire.

So what do we do, do we create a two caste system?

Do we have rich immortal people that can wile away the years with their interests and hobbies and another lower caste of mortals to do the menial labor for the immortals?

Seriously, I think that if humanity is to become immortal, it's going to have to grow up a bit. There would have to be major changes in the fabric of our society.

Well, art, fashion and basket weaving may not matter to you but they are an integral part of our culture as humans. For example: art is in the movies you watch, the screenplay is part of that art. Recurring themes in books and movies might be okay if you live to 100 but how many times can you see the same storyline repeated when you can live forever?

HeatherD

I noticed that I never actually responded to the OP.

I think that EotAI, you have a lot of ifs in your post.

IF brain cells and tissue can be satisfactorily regenerated:

I think that we will have the technology to do that satisfactorily quite soon, perhaps the next 20 - 30 years. Certainly before the end of my life.

Problem: If you cause cells to regenerate, how much is lost with the dead cells? At some point will you cease to be you or will you end up only being the latest incarnation?

IF brains can be transplanted:

I doubt this will be accomplished anytime soon. It might be possible but there are some major medical advances that must be developed before it will happen.

Problem: How to keep the brain active during an operation that might take many hours. Millions of nerves and blood vessels to reconnect, reconnections of major specialized organs that directly connect to the brain like smell, sight and hearing.


IF bodies can be cloned:

I don't see a technological problem with cloning per se. You could clone a human but what are the complications that might cause problems for the new parasite brain?

Problem: Have transplants been accomplished between clones? Are they alike even in rejection factors? Will they, like "Dolly the sheep", show signs of an aged cellular structure. Will the clone last as long as the original? Are there variations in the genetic structure making a clone a poor long-term solution?

Then there are the moral and ethical implications. Unless society changes significantly, I seriously doubt that society will legalize the production of sentient clones, only to have their brains sucked out. Even if living clones without brains could be developed, I don't see society accepting that.

DamagedGoods

I'm not a financial expert, and I suppose life expectancies of thousands of years would change the way we view economics, but there's no need to be a financial superstar to retire and still have millennia of retirement if you expect to live for 10,000 years. For example: if you only set aside $2000/year, and only earned 5% on your money, you'd have $11M ($600k in today's dollars assuming 3% average inflation) at the end of "only" 100 years of working - a mere 1% of your life expectancy. You could live on that for the rest of your life...as long as economics don't change too much.

I guess in my scenario above, somebody would always have to be working to provide that 5% return on my money. But I'm not so pessimistic as to assume that everyone would decide to lounge around and let some sort of slave class "do all the work." Some of us would most likely do some of that work just for the enjoyment of it. The "shit jobs" could probably be relegated to non-sentient machines (or at least human-controlled robots) at some point.

Maybe it will be necessary for us to continue working, kind of like it is now essential for some of us to perform 'artificial physical activity' (exercise) to avoid ill health. I guess you could also throw in many sci-fi scenarios here: we become too dependent on machines, and forget how everything works; the machines become more intelligent and adapable than we, and displace us, etc.

I just can't see myself sitting around eating doughnuts and watching TV for 10,000 years. Mmmmm...doughnuts...

DamagedGoods

Unless we are somehow prevented from ever moving a conscience to non-organic hardware, I don't think transplanting brains is going to be a worthwhile pursuit. As others have pointed out, that's a hell of a lot of connections to break and restore, and if we can make a brain live forever, we should be able to make the rest of a body live forever as well.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned often in regards to many immortality options is continuity of conscience. What I mean is this: if I undergo process "X" which transfers my mind to another platform (uploading to a computer, duplication of my brain into another organic mind, restoration of a 'backup' into a clone, etc.), is the 'copy' which awakes from the process really me? It might have all my memories and faculties, but is it the same 'thread' of consciousness as the one that went to sleep on the operating table? If it's not, then - from my perspective at least - I am not living forever. My knowledge and experience might be around forever to benefit society, but I will still die on the operating table.

The only way I can forsee doing a transfer that maintains continuity is to have a long-term connection between the current brain and the destination 'hardware.' The individual grows into the new hardware over time, and then is somehow weaned off the original brain. They would, at some point in the middle - assuming such a thing is possible - have the interesting perspective of existing partly outside their body.

Personally, if such an option were available near the end of my life, I would take it. In some ways I can see living in a non-organic body to be an interesting experience - if I lack the ability to do something, I can perhaps buy, build, or otherwise acquire upgrade parts.

But then again, maybe this whole concept of continuity isn't important, and maybe there won't really be any way to tell what happens from the perspective of the individual being transferred. Maybe we'll look back in 5,000 years and have a completely different perspective on consciousness and being. It would be nice to have the chance to be around to find out, though.

HeatherD

Yeah, I guess with enough money the compounded interest could be enough to live on. I do wonder what the economics of a society were every one was immortal would be like.

I would think that an immortal society would probably require a no-growth requirement. At least that's what I usually see postulated. In a world with limited resources, an ever expanding immortal species would be a detriment.

Our global economy is very much dependent on growth, how would a fixed size population with fixed production needs work?

Neither can I!

AtomSmasher

Consider that your actual value in knowledge and experience is highest right around when you retire. By 65 you have probably spent 4 to 8 years in school and 40 or 50 years in the work force. You know your job well and have a very good understanding of most necessary aspects of the society you live in. Then you retire and your productivity becomes a fraction of what it was, right when you would be most usefull. The problem is failing health. Who can continue working at the same pace when your joints are becoming arthritic, your hearing and sight are failing, and minor injuries like broken bones take months to heal instead of weeks.

IF immortality meant continued good health, then you would only increase in value. By 100 or so years a person, if they so desired, could master 10 disciplines instead of 2. Imagine the capability of person who has a masters in Chemistry, Physics, Math, Psycology, Computer Science, Biology, Metallurgy, Philosophy, Economics, etc.

As things are, someone who pursued all these subjects would never have the time to apply any of this knowledge before he becomes too old to care anymore.

That is why I say people who live for a very long time wouldn't sit idle, being in good health, people tend to find and pursue new interests.

HeatherD

I think you have some valid points but I think that there are other ways to look at these things.

Especially since no one has ever been immortal, we have no idea what effects it would have on individuals and society. All we can do is suppose, so I'm not sure if we can ever agree, or if it even can be resolved. You seem to be an eternal optimist, I'm a bit of a pessimist. I'd make a wager that you are somewhat younger than I am.

One of the things that you are forgetting is that youth is usually responsible for new and fresh ideas, new perspectives. Many advances are made by younger scientists and artists looking for a way to establish themselves. While I can be sure immortality would stagnate society completely, I doubt there would be the same kind of development.

I really have to wonder just what percentage of humans are actually able to master more than a few disciplines. I doubt that the majority of people, today at least, can even master one. Now I suppose if you have 10,000 years to do it, you might try and master some but I don't think you'll get very far.

The reason, as far as I can tell, is that knowledge is always changing. What value today would there be today in Galileo's knowledge of physics or astronomy. Today, even with our short lifetime, older people run into this all the time. "Sorry, but your experience is of little use to us today, the technology has changed." I've heard this at interviews. I'm old enough to remember how to work with and troubleshoot vacuum tubes. While I have kept up with some of the changes, there is so much new technology out there today, that my old knowledge is of no use. Certainly my experience has some value but you still have to keep up with the new. Imagine trying to do that with 10 disciplines.

Then you have the problem of value. If everyone else is immortal, and everyone else has the ability to master all these disciplines, you'll still have competition. You won't be unique by far.

A very, very small number of people tend to find and pursue new interests. Most people in this world want nothing more than to live the status quo. If you look at many of the countries were civilization developed from, many people are more than happy to just live day to day doing things like their ancestors did hundreds of years ago.

Of course, I doubt these people would want immortality. That leaves you with either having society deciding who gets immortality until only the immortals are left, or you have a class system where the immortals are in the elite class and mortals are used as the worker class.