secular-knight 69

If bio-gerontology succeeds in producing practical immortality, what are some of your thoughts on the pro's and con's and suggestions to solve the con's

Calzaer

The earth is already sputtering as it tries to hold 6.3 billion people. Imagine if none of those people ever DIED. Population would skyrocket an order of magnitude faster than it's skyrocketing already. If we ever develop immortality, we sure as hell had better be on the way to colonizing other planets.

Dominus Paradoxum

I think that by the time we're advanced enough to achieve immortality, we probably would be.

Kevbo

One interesting idea is that of "virtual reality" immortality, that is, being immortal in a sense of reality that is not our own but parallels our human experience. This online book by Roger Williams describes such a situation, where each individual person takes up no definite physical space, thereby dealing with the population problem. That book does get into some strange sexual fetishes, though, which are arguably related to the subject of immortality. In this world where everything is perfect and suffering is eliminated, people strive to create meaning for life by voluntarily undergoing suffering. A similar point is raised by the "Agent Smith" in The Matrix movie, that the human existence is defined by suffering. The conclusion I've come to regarding human suffering is thus:

Life: It's all about the struggle. That's the need that religion fulfills, or tries to. Human beings are defined by hardship and the struggle to survive, physically or emotionally. Arbitrary rules of religion are comforting because they give boundaries to infinity. There can be no perfection in reality, as the laws of thermodynamics hint at, so it is more comforting for many people to accept arbitrary rules imposed by religion. If there were perfection and no suffering, there would be no point to life as we define it.

Games, especially the ever-popular RPGs, or Role-Playing Games, simulate the experience of the struggle of life. That's why they're so addictive, it's in our nature as humans to compete in that struggle. We identify with our generated role as an extension of the self, and ascribe real emotions to the trials and tribulations of our fantasy character. Playing a game in God-mode is boring and pointless. The struggle to achieve arbitrary goals against the odds is what the fun in a game is constituated of.

To relate this to immortality, playing at life in "God-mode" is boring and pointless (This might just be the best argument for Christianity, that God was so bored he had to create the strange reality described in the Bible :notworthy). Without suffering, we would have to contemplate a new meaning for existence.

Then again, if we ever become technologically advanced enough to cheat death, we might be able to engineer our brains to ascribe a new meaning to life.

Wounded King

Do you really mean immortality or just immorbidity, both are considerably out of our ange at the moment but I suspect immortality is an order of magnitude or so harder to achieve.

Without some rather radical social engineering or massive emigration there is no way earth could sustain an immorid society.

Wyz_sub10

Part of the problem with sustaining the current population is the inefficient use (and inequitable distribution) of resources.

I have heard carrying capacity figures that range for 3.5 billion (optimal) to 23 billion.

I think many, though, agree with your sentiment that 6.3 is currently a challenge.

Here are some interesting articles on the subject:

Population, Sustainability, and Earth's Carrying Capacity

THE EARTH'S CARRYING CAPACITY--SOME LITERATURE REVIEWS

...and a couple of links to get some intense discussion going....

Population Research Institute

Have We Filled the Earth?

ps418

The industrial world that we have created is fueled by hydrocarbons. Though we arent going to run out of hydrocarbons altogether, we are very rapidly depleting the easily extractable reserves of oil. This is going to cause major headaches.

It is quite possible that genes influencing longevity will be found in humans. Such genes have already been identified in C. elegans, for example (Ayyadevara et al, 2003). If such genes are found in humans, it will probably not be possible to use the knowledge to make any of us live longer, but it very well may be possible in the not too distant future to use the knowledge to allow your children to live longer (still mortal, though). Of course, environmental interventions to increase longevity are already well-known (diet, medical care, etc.).

I think 50-70 years is enough. My views may change when I'm 50-70, though. What about 100 years with the body of a 20 year old? That would be a harder decision

Patrick

Ayyadevara et al, 2003. Genetic Loci Modulating Fitness and Life Span in Caenorhabditis elegans. Categorical trait interval mapping in cl2a x bergerac-bo recombinant-inbred worms. Genetics 163(2), pp. 557-70.

Jinto

GIven the current state of biology, I'd place my bets on cybernetic immortality (essentially, creating inorgainc replacements for every part of the body, including the brain) long before biological immortality. This method of immortality would also solve completely the population problem, as reproduction in the traditional sense would be completely impossible with an inorganic body. It also would have advantages from a food standpoint, being that the only resources these bodies would require are regular maintainence and a source of power.

The disadvantages:
The PoS: given that human existence is in part defined by suffering, living in synthetic bodies that never die, and possibly never feel pain, would eventually get quite boring. I suspect that in such a society, the major cause of death would be suicide.
Possible solutions: Engineer the synthetic brains to be incapable of boredom.
Create odd virtual worlds where suffering does exist
Indoctrinate people with a self-contradictory and hateful religoin causing them to generate artificial self-loathing and then artificial meaning to put up with it (finally, a use for Christianity).
Devote humanity to permanent galactic expansion, thereby creating a genuinely difficult task (may be difficult to implement if FTL travel turns out to be completely impossible).
Pan-galactic gargle blasters. 'Nuff said.

Majestyk

At this point I don't see how immorbidity (nice distinction btw) could be possible. Micro-parasites have proven to be tenacious little mutaters. Making our progeny disease-proof would almost certainly involve sending disease free humans to live forever in a sterile or at engineered environment.

If, the C. elegans research is an indicator then, it may be possible to alter our current biological trajectory towards decrepitude. Yes, the body of your twenties in your second century. We have a loooong way to go before we can attempt the genetic engineering required to manage cellular replication in an organism as complex as a vertebrate. And can brain structure be maintained indefinitely? Will we eventually run out of memory? Improbable or impractical? Maybe. 500 years from now? Maybe not.

Then again, we don't know how cybernetics will develop. Once we start coupling electro/mechanical devices to the nervous system, we'll have opened an entirely new set of possibilities.

As, I write this I'm beginning to see an open ended life span as almost an inevitability.

Now for the consequences.

Populations exceeding the environments ability to sustain it is a definite concern although, not a new one. We have had that problem for awhile. Famine is not a new concept.

I can speculate on a number of social, political, economic, and technical solutions but, no one can predict the paths that a society will choose with any real accuracy.

• Underground cities: Relieves pressure on the surface ecosystem. Does not create the thermal islands we see today. Requires less energy to maintain environmental conditions.
  
• Offshore habitats: sub-surface has been accomplished on a limited scale. However if, properly motivated and with the emerging technology of depolymerization, we might be able to create self-sustaining communities on the surface of a body of water. (my imagination is running wild here)
  
• Off world colonies: Sure. Maybe, 500 years from now. I don't really see them as population centers before then.
  
• Rigidly engineered distribution systems: I loathe the thought but, dire circumstance may lead to it.
  
• Well managed free market economies: No one is starving where these are in place. (oops... getting political here)

Let's move to some social implications.

• How will we react when our parents are basically in the same physical condition that we are in our thirties? I mean when your a teen you might expect to hear "Dude your mom is hot!" but not after you have kids of your own.
  
• And how about people regularly having children when the are already grandparents? If, the "nuclear family" wasn't a defunct concept before it certainly will be then.
  
• Procreation would almost certainly be regulated to some extent.
  
• Retirement? Why? When? How?
  
• Religion. Okay. So, maybe Abraham Joe Bob could've lived to be 375.

Thanks for the topic. I had fun.

secular-knight 69

Just some more food for thought, for some who may be against it.

If you do not support suicide now, why would you ask someone to voluntarily die?

If you say it is against nature, one could say that medicence and healthcare is too because it prevents nature from elimanating the weak. Would you stop health care because it goes agianst nature?

Is it just me or are the signature not working?