The problem here is that there are a lot of living things that evolve very quickly (relatively speaking) that happen to find that their survival conflicts with ours; and they’re very good at ensuring their own. Throughout all of human history we struggled against bacterial diseases; finally the Wonder Drug, penicillin, came out and the war was won…until fifty years later when the bacteria started figuring antibiotics out. The more we medicate ourselves, the more the other living things that want to kill us will evolve out of necessity. Life goes on, and once we really figure out all of the stuff that wants to kill us now, new stuff that wants to kill us will pop up and start taking shots.
In short: I feel the debate’s foundation is unrealistic.
Biological evolution isn’t as fast as human technology. And due to things like computers, the internet, globalization and the spread of literacy scientific development will keep occuring faster & faster.
It seems like the only living thing able to evolve to kill us are microorganisms. And you have to take into consideration that antibiotics are only about 60 years old and the antibiotics we have access they still work for the vast majority of infections. Even many superbugs are succeptible to a cocktail of existing antibiotics. With another 200 years I’m sure we’ll have much more effective methods of killing microorganisms.
They microorganisms will have much more effective methods of killing us, too. I don’t claim to be well-versed in microbiology, but that’s my take on the matter. YMMV. Only one way to find out, eh?
If/when humans obtain immortality, will suicide be the only way to die"
QUOTE not quite the same as Initial Question Asked.
im·mor·tal Pronunciation Key (-môrtl)
adj. 1. Not subject to death: immortal deities; the immortal soul.
2. Never to be forgotten; everlasting: immortal words.
3. Of or relating to immortality.
4. Biology. Capable of indefinite growth or division. Used of cells in culture.
mor·tal Pronunciation Key (môrtl)
adj. 1. Liable or subject to death.
2. Of or relating to humankind; human: the mortal limits of understanding.
3. Of, relating to, or accompanying death: mortal throes.
4. Causing death; fatal: a mortal wound. See Synonyms at fatal.
If you are immortal you can not die!
If you are mortal you can die!
Nope. The question was if/when we reach a point technologically where by and large a person doesn’t die unless they want to, what will it do to our civilization? Will people start committing suicide, will moral values change now that death isn’t something to try to escape from, etc.
Nonsense. If the third world had the ability to take over and get the benefits of the first world, why wouldn’t they be doing it now?
The effectiveness of weapons as a control mechanism scales pretty well with technology. A mounted knight is a match for dozens of footsoldiers. A machine-gunner for hundreds. And explosives for thousands or millions. Vastly effective medical treatments would only further entrench the powers that be.
Yep, it is one of the things that makes me so much at home on this board.
But to get away from this BIG question, to give my much more mundane answer, given “virtual immrtality” I think that while suicide would be one of the biggies, you are still gonna have a whole lot of folk dying by violence, car wrecks, starvation, and virulent disease (like a super-Ebola virus, or pneumonic AIDS).
These outside factors would, IMHO, still be factors, and since one could live for a very,very long time otherwise, they would get even more attention and horror than they do today.
Many, many years ago, I read this science fiction story which was truly excellent. I do not remember the title, the author, or which magazine or collectin I read it in. But it was excellent.
It posits a group of people who could afford the medical/surgical treatment which would turn them into VIPs (Virtually Immortal Persons). Way it worked, it “froze” you at whatever stage of development you were at. Issues:
Your body could no longer heal any but the most insignificant wounds.
Therefore, the VIPs had to be ultra-careful, because if they say, broke a leg, it would not heal. This necesitated reversing the procedure, making them mortal again until the leg healed. Then, if they had the money, they could re-do the procedure.
The prcedure cost a LOT of money…I think it was all your assets, with a minimum of some huge sum.
Here’s the kicker…there was a 50% fatality rate on the procedure!
It was a murder mystery, and the protagonist was a normal dude detective/police officer trying to solve a murder amongst these VIPs.
Well, he doesn’t think much of them or their lifestyles, gets involved with a curvaceous VIP who is a sports/adventure adventuress, and has had the procedure done to her more than once.
Cutting to the chase, he solves the murder, and at the end…Lord, I love this…as a token of gratitude, the VIP council offers HIM the chance for the procedure! A chance to go arm-in-arm with his inamorata through the centuries,.
Providing, of course, if he survives this coin-toss. Providing, of course, if he wants to toss his prejudices at the VIPs aside.
Which will he choose? The lady or the tiger?
Loved the story. Maybe one of you remember it. I think it does have some bearing on the OP.
Well this assumes that in 200 years technology is advanced enough so that even if you are the victim of violence or a car wreck you will still survive. I heard once that murder deaths have been going down for the last 20 years, not because there are less murders but because medical technology is better and people can be saved. I don’t think it is true (it was conversational material) but the idea makes sense and it makes you think. For example, If all the hoopla about nanotechnology eventually comes true and we eventually do have trillions of advanced nanobots flowing through our bodies then 100+ years down the road perhaps we will have fully functional hospitals flowing in our bloodstreams 24/7, and the nanobots can repair damage caused by disease or injury as soon as it occurs. If so then a car accident will not be life threatening, neither will violence. Nor will disease. The only way to die will be if you get tired of living.
I strongly suspect that by the time you reach 150 years of age that you will be so decrepit, i.e. weakened, worn out, impaired, or broken down by old age, illness, or hard use that you may think you are immortal but wish you were dead.
You put a 357 magnum to your head if you and find that either you are too weak to hold it there or if you can you can’t find enough strength to pull the trigger.
How will everyone be able to afford the medical ‘treatment’ for it. Even if it’s just a pill - one single pill - that will do you for the next 20 years or so, I would assume most would have to take out a loan, perhaps repaying for 99 years. After a few of these treatments one would be so in hock to the drug companies that they would end up bankrupt.
Also I can’t see how all death would be stopped. Weather, structural failures, and if something is not done about it Islamic fundamentalists will manage to kill off a few here and there.
This is based on the assumption that in 200 years or so this is affordable. And based on the assumption that we understand enough about medicine, engineering, nanotechnology, etc so that by and large deaths due to accidents and natural disasers are extremely rare.
