Metanet Forums

And the cure was discovered, what repercussions do you think this would have on the world? Also, would you take it?

It would be hard for me to decide. First off, if such a thing were ever to happen (which it won't) it would disprove most (all?) religions, as that would really screw with any deity's plan with the universe (you know, the whole not-going-to-heaven thing), so that leaves only a scientific explanation of death in which everything just stops, and as of yet there lacks solid proof of a soul, death would be the same as "pre-birth," pretty much nothing. So the plus side is I would live and learn forever. The down side is I would never know peace in death. The world sucks, and there aren't any signs of it improving anytime soon. Having all of the time in the world, on the other hand, sounds amazing. Though I suppose these opinions only hold in application to myself, and if the whole world had access to this miracle cure, things would be much different. If everyone took it, you wouldn't have to deal with the problem of living to see all of your friends and family die, but this would cause major issues with crowding, government, economics.

So things to think about:

A) If only available to you, would you take it?
B) If available to the world, would you take it?
C) Everything else (i.e. ethics, repercussions, etc).

Do you mean what if aging were a disease? I'm not sure a gunshot to the head could be cured, unless when you say 'cured' you mean applying some kind of regenerative quality to our cells like Claire Bennet?

Anyway, if I could add a couple of hundred years of prime life onto my span, I'd be interested. No more though. Immortality sounds like a disease itself.

Oh, sorry, let me clarify:

By curing death, I mean to stop you from aging, from whatever age you are at. You still function normally, just without the aging (so a bullet to the head would still kill you).

i think something like this, if applied to the world, would cause a lot more crime, violence, wars, etc.

if no one died normally, there could possibly be a larger amount of people resorting to violence to solve things?

i don't know, but i think this is a very interesting topic.

Do I still get older being immortal?

Techno wrote:Do I still get older being immortal?

Two posts above you wrote:By curing death, I mean to stop you from aging,

A. If only available to me I would choose to take it. I'd much rather live and experience things for as long as I could, so that if and when death happens for me by "unnatural" causes I could be happy in knowing all that I had seen and learned about.

B. If available to the world I wouldn't take it unless it made everybody sterile. Because people would be living for as long as possible without being killed by something there would be no reason for a replacement generation, since I'm assuming the majority of those wanting to live as long as possible would be living for multiple generations, therefore they would not need another generation.

C. There would need to be an age minimum on it. Parents shouldn't be allowed to have their 6-year-old son or daughter live forever with a 6-year-old brain. There's a lot of development that needs to happen between the time one is born until their mid- or late-20's. I'm thinking 25 would be the age minimum needed to receive a vaccine for natural death.

I'm not sure that religious groups would see it as a falsification of their religion. I would think they'd try to make comparisons to the Garden of Eden and claim it as the forbidden fruit of immortality rather than knowledge.

@T3chno:
No. You'd have to celebrate your 17th birthday over and over and over and over and over and....

I don't think it would disprove religion. If anything, it would create more religions.

A scientific "cure to death" would be seen by some as the advent of New Jerusalem here on earth. Like, people would assume that the discovery was what the Bible must've been talking about all along. Others may see it as the work of an anti-Christ; already, preachers have likened the current existence on Earth to already being in Hell. To them, Hell isn't a place you go but a place you save yourself from. Those scientists who perfect everlasting earthly life would be agents of anti-Christ, offering eternal damnation to those who buy into their ploys.

Of course, without the prospect of death, the world would quickly become like Hell--a seething pile of the unfed, the struggling, the sick. They would reproduce out of control and eventually new flesh would be born to a world where they have no ability to move or act. The evolution of the overpopulated species would cause each human born to resemble a space-saving hunk of sentient flesh with no ability to act. Earth would be a meaty rapefest.

Now, if all humans became infertile at the same time, the Earth might quickly go from Hell to Heaven, with a sustainable and permanent race with ample resources and unlimited time to explore the boundless universe.

Could go either way.



Fun thought experiment.

capt_weasle wrote:And the cure was discovered, what repercussions do you think this would have on the world? Also, would you take it?

If offered, I would leap at the opportunity in a heartbeat.
We'd pretty much have to make reproduction illegal without a rarely-issued license, and I think depending on how the cure is available, we might experience sharper separation of social class. Regardless, I wonder what opinions will be of "sages" who have been around for centuries -- whether people will revere them or think they're off their damned rockers.

capt_weasle wrote:First off, if such a thing were ever to happen (which it won't)

Never say never.

capt_weasle wrote:it would disprove most (all?) religions, as that would really screw with any deity's plan with the universe (you know, the whole not-going-to-heaven thing), so that leaves only a scientific explanation of death in which everything just stops, and as of yet there lacks solid proof of a soul, death would be the same as "pre-birth," pretty much nothing.

God is omniscient, and He invented science. I don't see how He could possibly fail to anticipate such an achievement. Omnipotent beings do not create undesired results, and so by extension, everything that happens has to have been intended by God. So if we do find a cure for death, it's in God's plan.
Otherwise, you seem to be saying, "God exists until such time as He's disproven, at which point He will disappear and reality will adjust itself accordingly."

capt_weasle wrote:So the plus side is I would live and learn forever. The down side is I would never know peace in death.

There is no peace to know in death; experience becomes inapplicable when you die. You're not missing out on anything.

capt_weasle wrote:The world sucks, and there aren't any signs of it improving anytime soon.

...are you serious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Suki wrote:

capt_weasle wrote:So the plus side is I would live and learn forever. The down side is I would never know peace in death.

There is no peace to know in death; experience becomes inapplicable when you die.

I would disagree with this, considering that peace is just a lack of conflict or commotion. Death--a lack of everything--is probably necessarily peaceful. Unless it's warful.

In fact, a cold death in the ground is far more peaceful than even the mildest of afterlives. I can't imagine existence (living or afterliving) without conflict.

Suki wrote:

capn wrote:The world sucks, and there aren't any signs of it improving anytime soon.

...are you serious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

captain weasle would have loved the Middle Ages. Or the 50's.

I think every graph, everywhere, indicates that stuff is getting better. People are living longer. There's less suffering. People in third world countries are jockeying--slowly but surely--to the classification of second world countries. I think we're living in a great time. And I think times are only getting better.

Well would you be able to choose when to stop ageing / when to start ageing again?

Cause then that would seem more realistic, as it'd be stupid to suddenly not age as soon as the "cure" was found right when you were just born..

I don't think it's death as a disease, but rather ageing as a power. That'd be pretty cool.

blue_tetris wrote: And I think times are only getting better.

I don't think so. My thought is that we are in the peak of the great days. Some stuff are evolving greatly, but big problems (as the environmental ones) will have a disastrous effect on the society, influencing economy (which will too be affected by the lack of oil), that leading to crisis (we're seeing a little of that right now), and that leading to a degrading society.


On topic: I would probably commit suicide if I didn't age. I would see all my friends and family, the people I love gone forever. Me standing there, alone.

blue_tetris wrote:Of course, without the prospect of death, the world would quickly become like Hell--a seething pile of the unfed, the struggling, the sick. They would reproduce out of control and eventually new flesh would be born to a world where they have no ability to move or act. The evolution of the overpopulated species would cause each human born to resemble a space-saving hunk of sentient flesh with no ability to act. Earth would be a meaty rapefest.

Alternately, space exploration funding would increase by six billion percent. In fact, if nobody aged, it removes one of the problems with interstellar travel. It doesn't matter if it takes thousands of years to get there, as long as you can prevent people starving on the way.

blue_tetris wrote:

Suki wrote:

capt_weasle wrote:So the plus side is I would live and learn forever. The down side is I would never know peace in death.

There is no peace to know in death; experience becomes inapplicable when you die.

I would disagree with this, considering that peace is just a lack of conflict or commotion. Death--a lack of everything--is probably necessarily peaceful. Unless it's warful.

In fact, a cold death in the ground is far more peaceful than even the mildest of afterlives. I can't imagine existence (living or afterliving) without conflict.

Key word is "know."

if there is an afterlife or life after death, why would rather being a lump of nothing, then to live eternally in a state of content

an afterlife would be much much more than just a glorified visit to an endless Toys R Us aisle

Deathconciousness wrote:if there is an afterlife or life after death, why would rather being a lump of nothing, then to live eternally in a state of content

an afterlife would be much much more than just a glorified visit to an endless Toys R Us aisle

Because existence isn't defined by what we think would be nice. Wanting a specific afterlife is not going to magically make it exist.

Tsukatu wrote:

Deathconciousness wrote:if there is an afterlife or life after death, why would rather being a lump of nothing, then to live eternally in a state of content

an afterlife would be much much more than just a glorified visit to an endless Toys R Us aisle

Because existence isn't defined by what we think would be nice. Wanting a specific afterlife is not going to magically make it exist.

Not that this is particularly relevant, since this is not the Life After Death topic.