I have figured out why we are mortal

[k9bfriender]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

This makes me think of Anne Rice’s vampire books where the immortal vampires eventually kill themselves or go insane because they can’t keep up or understand modern times as they age, or they just get bored with living so long.

I think if I were the only, or among the very few immortal beings, that would be trboulbing. The constant pain of losing friends and loved one, along with the boredom of never seeing anything truly novel would get to me after a bit.

If it were the norm to live forever rather than the exception, though, I think I would be just fine.

[Darren_Garrison]

@k9bfriender

I think if I were the only, or among the very few immortal beings, that would be trboulbing.

I heard that it could lead to sporadic agraphia.

[Jackmannii]

If we were immortal, the plot of “A Tale Of Two Cities” would’ve seemed kind of silly.

[k9bfriender]

@Jackmannii

If we were immortal, the plot of “A Tale Of Two Cities” would’ve seemed kind of silly.

So would every Agatha Christie novel.

[TriPolar]

If we were immortal would we consider mortality at all?

[Darren_Garrison]

@Jackmannii

If we were immortal, the plot of “A Tale Of Two Cities” would’ve seemed kind of silly.

And the theme song for Big Hero 6 would be all like “yeah, so?”

[Tim_R.Mortiss]

@Senegoid

Mortality vs. immortality has various definitions.

By one common definition (apparently the OP’s definition), it means one eventually dies vs. never dies.

But another definition (and I think, more common in mythology) means that one can never die a natural death, but can be killed (e.g., in battle or by any other enemy). Immortals of this sort can live indefinitely long, but may eventually be killed. The elves of LOTR, for example, were this kind of immortal.

By this definition, the OP’s entire thesis falls apart.

Does it? If one could live forever, but chooses to sacrifice their life for the sake of a loved one, isn’t that even *more *of a sacrifice? You are not just giving up a finite number of years, but an infinite number of years.

[Skywatcher]

@jz78817

this world would be uninhabitable if living things didn’t eventually die.

…

[JRDelirious]

OP because there is death and nonexistence, we have an incentive to make the most of our too, too limited shot at life and existence. But where for some that means love and sacrifice for others, others just go for maximum pleasure and display of power for themselves. So there is no teleological progression from mortality to high moral value.

And for crying out loud, nobody “chose love over immortality”. Our nonhuman ancestors were mortal for billions of years before sentient consciousness and moral sense arose as an emergent property of a more complex brain (or were infused into it by the Deity or alien monolith, if you will).

[Gozu]

@JRDelirious

OP because there is death and nonexistence, we have an incentive to make the most of our too, too limited shot at life and existence. But where for some that means love and sacrifice for others, others just go for maximum pleasure and display of power for themselves. So there is no teleological progression from mortality to high moral value.

And for crying out loud, nobody “chose love over immortality”. Our nonhuman ancestors were mortal for billions of years before sentient consciousness and moral sense arose as an emergent property of a more complex brain (or were infused into it by the Deity or alien monolith, if you will).

Not inspiring enough!

@TriPolar

If we were immortal would we consider mortality at all?

Not unless other beings (our pets?) were mortal, and even then, we would not obsess over it as much.

@k9bfriender

The comparative shortness of life may make us appreciate it and the lives of others more than if we were immortal, but that would only mean that love is a consequence of mortality, not a cuase of it.

Is love a consequence of mortality like I claim?

@Senegoid

Mortality vs. immortality has various definitions.

By one common definition (apparently the OP’s definition), it means one eventually dies vs. never dies.

But another definition (and I think, more common in mythology) means that one can never die a natural death, but can be killed (e.g., in battle or by any other enemy). Immortals of this sort can live indefinitely long, but may eventually be killed. The elves of LOTR, for example, were this kind of immortal.

By this definition, the OP’s entire thesis falls apart.

First definition. Latter definition should be for agelessness, not immortality imho.

@Chefguy

Love is hormones. Death is biology. End of story.

Or is it…just the beginning?

@Darren_Garrison

OP, are you using your story as some sort of saccharine metaphor, or do you literally believe that there was some sort of celestial conference of immortal pre-humans who voted on whether or not to shed their immortality?

Saccharine metaphor are not the exact words I would have used (mine would have made me look better) it but yes, you guessed correctly.

@Little_Nemo

As others have said, humans are just another species of animal. There’s no reason why we should be different than other species. The only reason why we would be immortal would be if immortality was the normal state for animals. And if immortality was normal, humans never would have appeared. The world would be overrun by all of the earlier species that existed before us.

Maybe we could have sent the excess ecosphere to space?

[GuanoLad]

Programmed obsolescence.

[Darren_Garrison]

@Gozu

Saccharine metaphor are not the exact words I would have used (mine would have made me look better) it but yes, you guessed correctly.

Try putting it into verse. It could be the next “One Set of Footprints on the Rainbow Bridge While I Throw Starfish Back Into the Ocean.”

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Ah, but wait…what about immortals having the sexy with mortals? Huh? What then? No love for Hercules amongst you mere mortals? How would we even play D&D without demi-gods? Have you fools never thought about that either? Ram your fucking 20 sided die up your arse, I’m with Hercules.

[RTFirefly]

@Little_Nemo

As others have said, humans are just another species of animal. There’s no reason why we should be different than other species. The only reason why we would be immortal would be if immortality was the normal state for animals. And if immortality was normal, humans never would have appeared. The world would be overrun by all of the earlier species that existed before us.

And if animals were mortal but not humans, the old folks would never die off and get the hell out of the way of later generations.

[k9bfriender]

@Gozu

Is love a consequence of mortality like I claim?

Well, you claimed that mortality was a consequence of love in your OP, not the other way around.

And whether love would be possible without death is a philosophical question that cannot really be answered definitively without empirical evidence.

Immortality would change us, to be sure, but if it would get rid of passion and desire and a fondness for community and friends, I could not say.

I am willing to be a guinea pig on this. Make me immortal, and I’ll tell you if I still love.

[Darren_Garrison]

@Gozu

Is love a consequence of mortality like I claim?

Love is a consequence of there being an advantage in pair-bonding to care for offspring, and in caring for that offspring itself rather than tossing the bawling poop-machine off of a cliff. It is a useful tool to help genes successfully create more genes.

[Eonwe]

I love people I wouldn’t die for.

[PatrickLondon]

If we were immortal, we would either never reproduce or be standing on each other’s shoulders for eternity.

[Sailboat]

@PatrickLondon

If we were immortal, we would either never reproduce or be standing on each other’s shoulders for eternity.

Or, in my case, someone would be standing on my groin. With my luck.

[Wesley_Clark]

Do people know why we age though?

I was under the impression that we age because there is no evolutionary pressure to keep us alive after reproductive age. So there is natural selection pressure to keep us alive long enough to birth and raise a new generation, after that evolution doesn’t care. So no selection pressure to make people live forever. Just pressure to live long enough to have kids that survive to reproductive age, after that your body falls to the powers of entropy.

Also supposedly some traits that are helpful when you are young are harmful when old. I don’t have examples, but I’ve heard some aspects of heart disease or dementia are due to traits that are helpful when you are young.

But anyway, we die because evolution has no incentive to keep us alive after we’ve procreated and our children have reached independence and maturity.

Supposedly thats a big part of it. Then again, turtles don’t care for their young and turtles can live hundreds of years. Who knows.