If so why, if not why not?

The question would only arise if one was allowed to have good bodily and mental health as well as circumstances that benefited and contributed to that .

 

If not ,let's go with the flow. and only struggle against it where reasonable.

 

If those who are many times our betters have gone that way it might seem impertinent to expect a "better" fate.

Define "live". Not down to the trivial, but it would be important to know something about your immortality process.

 

Do we continue to age at some slower rate, or is it assumed you'll be an average, healthy person (at what age physiologically?) who can't die? Or is this more of a "as long as you don't have a fatal accident, you'll never die, at least of natural causes" sort of affair?

 

I kind of favor the idea of not dying of natural causes, but still being mortal when it comes to decapitation or being blown up. This might negate the intention of the implied immortality of "forever". Is forever important in this scenario, or is a thousand years enough?

 

As for living a whole lot longer, sure, sign me up. If I don't have to worry about my mental and physical capabilities being impaired, and could spend my scads of time accumulating compound interest, and using that to explore the world, meet new people, discover new discoveries, experience the development of our species and others over longer periods of time, and generally push the limits of how much a person can know, I can't think of a more delightful future.

I wouldn't for multiple reasons. The first reason is that after about 1000 years chances are I won't have any limbs, accidents will probably chop them off etc. Another reason is that if everyone else evolves except me, that would be kind of awkward. Finally everyone I know would die long before I would. This would result in an endless rate of heart break every century or so.

Define "live". Not down to the trivial, but it would be important to know something about your immortality process.

 

Do we continue to age at some slower rate, or is it assumed you'll be an average, healthy person (at what age physiologically?) who can't die? Or is this more of a "as long as you don't have a fatal accident, you'll never die, at least of natural causes" sort of affair?

 

I kind of favor the idea of not dying of natural causes, but still being mortal when it comes to decapitation or being blown up. This might negate the intention of the implied immortality of "forever". Is forever important in this scenario, or is a thousand years enough?

 

As for living a whole lot longer, sure, sign me up. If I don't have to worry about my mental and physical capabilities being impaired, and could spend my scads of time accumulating compound interest, and using that to explore the world, meet new people, discover new discoveries, experience the development of our species and others over longer periods of time, and generally push the limits of how much a person can know, I can't think of a more delightful future.

I agree.

My bad, an ill defined question, Ok let’s assume one can choose the age you want immortalised and stay that age.

Edited April 14, 20169 yr by dimreepr

My bad, an ill defined question, Ok let’s assume one can choose the age you want immortalised and stay that age.

 

Nothing can harm us?

No.

And to throw a spanner in the works, one can choose another to join one.

My bad, an ill defined question, Ok let’s assume one can choose the age you want immortalised and stay that age.

IMO it's not a bad question, but you ask a tough crowd.

 

If medicine can heal all, which seems necessary to entertain the possibility of living forever, then why not. At least, I'd choose to live till life was no longer bearable with no chance of a better life.

Can I change my mind at some point and choose to die?

No.

And to throw a spanner in the works, one can choose another to join one.

 

Oh, it's just me and one other, not everyone?

IMO it's not a bad question, but you ask a tough crowd.

 

 

I do like to ask questions with enough ambiguity to provoke interesting tangents, but in this case I think the tangents would cloud the purpose.

 

 

If medicine can heal all, which seems necessary to entertain the possibility of living forever, then why not. At least, I'd choose to live till life was no longer bearable with no chance of a better life.

 

 

 

It’s not so much a question of a final choice but one of an initial choice.

 

Oh, it's just me and one other, not everyone?

 

 

Yes.

Yes.

 

That means part of my life will be spent hiding the immortality of my wife and I.

 

That means part of my life will be spent hiding the immortality of my wife and I.

 

 

Would that change your answer?

Not forever.

 

Eventually you would get to a point where you have experienced everything you are going to experience in a life - except the process of dying. The sirens' call would be too strong for me.

Would that change your answer?

 

I'm trying to wrap my head around the general response to a couple who can't die, who get to live forever while the rest of humanity gets less than a hundred years. How many people would support our right to privacy, and how many would demand we be tested to find out our secret?

Not forever.

 

Eventually you would get to a point where you have experienced everything you are going to experience in a life - except the process of dying. The sirens' call would be too strong for me.

 

 

So wisdom has limits?

Does it require a suspension of disbelief to answer this question? We will all die (and must die) and so it seems to be just a question of "would you like to live a very long time?" (are the young not "immortal" because death to them is unthinkable?)

 

Is there a silver lining to our knowledge that we will die ? Does it give an existential (the right word ?) content to our lives ?

 

Can we be measured by the way we meet our demise? George Harrison thought so as that is why ( he apparently said) he was so determined not to let the intruder kill him and deprive him of his "own death".

Does it require a suspension of disbelief to answer this question? We will all die (and must die) and so it seems to be just a question of "would you like to live a very long time?" (are the young not "immortal" because death to them is unthinkable?)

 

Is there a silver lining to our knowledge that we will die ? Does it give an existential (the right word ?) content to our lives ?

 

Can we be measured by the way we meet our demise? George Harrison thought so as that is why ( he apparently said) he was so determined not to let the intruder kill him and deprive him of his "own death".

 

 

This is a philosophical question, hence the chosen fora.

Can I be Q?

 

 

This is a philosophical question, hence the chosen fora.

Hardly any more philosophical than to ask "who wants more pudding?" -although it does feed into my affected disdain for philosophy.

Edited April 14, 20169 yr by geordief

Hardly any more philosophical than to ask "who wants more pudding?" -although it does feed into my affected disdain for philosophy.

 

 

Rito.

 

 

So wisdom has limits?

Maybe; for sure people have limits.

Who wants to live forever?

Me, obviously. Within a thousand years we'll have access to synthetic bodies that are far more advanced than our current bodies, and I'd go for that in a millisecond. After that, technology will likely keep becoming more advanced until we've reached some ridiculously insane level, and I'd be there to take part in it

 

That, or we blow everything up because we're raging idiots

 

Can I be Q?

 

The Q can die, because they can kill each other.

Edited April 14, 20169 yr by Thorham

Not forever per se, but I wouldn't be opposed to another few hundred years. However, since you're asking me this question today, I'd regretfully reject the offer as it's almost impossible to live undetected today; had it been a few centuries ago then it would change my answer. As tempting as it is to have more time, I also don't want to be a fugitive or a lab rat (unless you're also offering super powers too since we're being hypothetical). Why must we measure in quantity anyway? There are those who live well into their nineties and don't leave their town or change their routine; can you say their life would be vastly improved by additional time? For me, life is more beautiful because I know my days are numbered; it is because they're numbered that they're precious. I'm not certain I'd be as inspired to see and do as much as I could if I knew the time would always be there.

 

So wisdom has limits?

 

Must have: I don't know what it would mean to be infinitely wise.