If in the next 200 years I assume we will understand enough about aging that people will be able to live forever (if they choose) then the only way to really die aside from a serious accident like being crushed by a building would be to let yourself die or to choose to die. So how would this impact society if instead of running from death like we do now we have a society where people choose to die and death is not really feared as it is something we can control? will it have any moral implications in day to day life? Will evil acts like murder become more or less acceptable in such a world? It seems like the entire idea and value system of life vs. death would change in such a world because to us death is something to be terrified of and to escape by any means necessary. For them death may be something they control (disease would be largely non-existant, medical technology could fix most accidents and aging may be non-existant) and as a result doesn’t really scare or intimidate them.
You cannot control death since there is no way back from it. So murder will become significantly less acceptable since the murdered denied the victim not some mere 50 years of life at most, but eternity.
Also, death will scare people even more than now. We have decades to prepare for death since we start thinking about it roughly the age of 10. We see our grandparents and parents die and build mental defences for ourselves, accepting the inevitability of death. In an immortal society people will not build these defences, they will not learn to accept death and as a result it will be much more terrifying.
If I may restate this question, you seem to be asking, “If nothing could kill us, could anything else kill us?”
More importantly, could an immortal be elected POTUS?
Maybe, but man, wouldn’t the vice president feel worthless.
Anyway, I agree with Njigut. Except I’d add that periodically we’d see an uptick in deaths as the younger generations start thinking themselves truely immortal and start to become very reckless. Eventually, after enough of their friends die in solar parasailing accidents, they’d become more cautious.
Maybe not even suicide. Watch Zardoz sometime. If you can. In the end, the movie asks the question “How do you commit suicide when the system won’t let you commit suicide, and you’re immortal anyway?” Not the first SF story to ask the question, either.
The sun will turn into a red giant some five billion years from now, possibly becoming gradually hotter fast enough to make life on Earth impossible as in soon as 100 million years (stray meteors will probably get oss before that, in any case). After, that, it’ll end it’s life as a tiny, cold white dwarf, having swallowed all the terrestial planets. That’ll kill us, if we don’t find a new solar system. OK, assume we do find one. If you wait long enough, all the stars in all galaxies will burn through their cycles, run out of fuel and become white dwarfs or blacks holes - a few will explode as supernovas. The universe will become dark, cold and nasty. OK, say we somehow manage to get through that, too - not that anything could. Wait even longer, on the trillions and trillions of years scale, proton decay will likely get us. All the matter in the universe will, on an unfathomably large time scale, dissolve into radiation. Eventually, all parts this radiation will radiate itself into the vincinity of some black hole and drop in. Even more slowly, according to Hawking’s theories on black hole evaporation, the black holes themselves will radiate away, and we’ll be left with a uniform, cold sea of elementary particles that grows ever more diffuse as the universe continues to expand. After that… something even more nasty that we haven’t thought of yet will probably happen.
OK, that might have not have seemed directly relevant to the OP. Just saying that there’s no such thing as “eternity” waiting for us if we find out how to cheat death. A helluva long time, possibly, but nothing last forever. It seems that death is an inherent quality of the universe as such.
Makes ya think, no? 
According to my highschool biology teacher one of the conditions that must be satisfied for something to be considered alive is that it must have the ability to die. So if we became truly immortal we would cease to be alive.
Also… if we stop dying, we’ll have to stop reproducing, too, lest we seriously overpopulate the place even faster than we’re already doing. So no more cuddly babies, no new generations to think differently from their parents… a whole lot less new innovations and shifts of perspective to drive technology and philosophy forward. The human race got to where it is today largely because we die.
In any case, looking at how we go about dividing resources on the planet now, immortality will likely be something that will be reserved for those in power and those who can afford it. The poor masses will still be stuck with mortality, while the tiny, powerful minority (including the POTUS) will be the immortal and healthy ones. It’ll be a class divide on a whole new level.
Where will that put us?
Right back to the situation of the immortal gods of Mount Olympus vs. the petty humans. So, see, we already have a literature dealing with the situation.
Again… makes ya think, no?
BTW - Hey, that’s one cool story! 
I thought there was only one terrestrial planet.
Terrestial or “earth-like” planets - refers to Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars in our solar system, as well as to similar planets in other systems. As opposed to gas giants. Wiki article.
Well, for all intents and purposes we will be immortal as far as human time goes. True, not immortal by universal time but still what I mean is that in 200 years it sounds feasable that we will understand enough about aging, disease, trauma and medicine that by and large nobody will die who doesn’t want to. So what will that do for our moral system? Humans have evolved and created cultures which were in part based around a fear of death and a desire to escape it. So when we are able to avoid death indefinately then what will that do for our culture when death is considered something we choose instead of fear and try to escape, and suicide is the only legitimate way to die?
For that, see my second post… which I’m lot more pleased with.
There probably will be suicide machines in the future. I can just see the advertisements.
Suicide. The only way to die.
That’s what I get for joking around. I thought you’d just misspelled it.
I don’t think that situation would be stable.
In first world nations, the people would demand longevity treatments as a human right, much as they current demand basic healthcare. Third-world nations don’t have that option, but they outnumber the rest, and they sit on all the resources. They’d eat the first world and take the treatments.
Eventually, perhaps after centuries of war, disease, and famine, humanity would settle into a new equilibrium. The birth rate would plummet, and the death rate would flatten out as accidents inevitably took a few people here and there.
Oh. I did misspell it. Twice. :smack:
If I acquire the ability to hold together the burrito filling with psychic powers, will I still need the tortilla?
I read that. But I don’t really agree with it for a few reasons.
-
Overpopulation isn’t a major problem. Assuming agricultural technology continues to improve then providing food shouldn’t be a problem even if the population reaches gigantic numbers like a trillion. Places like India have had crop yields increase by 5x in the last 40 years, there is no reason to think that we wont find newer ways to get more food out of less land in the future using newer methods of agriculture. Plus its not like everyone will have 2 kids every 30 years. People may have 2 kids then never have any more kids after that. Assuming this is the case then the population would only go up by a flat rate of 15 billion or so every 30 years as each new generation has two more kids (assuming the world populaiton is about 15 billion when this starts.) This is growth, but I’d assume we’d have the technology to deal with it in the 23rd century.
-
Land overpopulation shouldn’t be a problem either. Even with a trillion people we could still inhabit the planet with more large cities. Population densities of 40,000 people per square miles are possible in large cities, and sometimes go far higher reaching 100,000 or more. All in all I think people would choose more population dense cities over death.
-
If this technology is created it’ll find its way into the hands of the masses, just like all technologies do. They’ll start out being playthings of the wealthy in industrialized countries, then the regular people in industrialized countries will get them. Then middle class people in the developing world will get them, then eventually everyone will have access to them. Considering that countries like India & China (which contain about 40% of the world’s population) are growing at 6-9% a year they should be able to afford first world technology within 50 years or so. Assuming their growth rate remains constant, which it probably wont.