A Defense of Immortality
Everybody loves pretty gold geometrical shapes!
Okay, today’s post is going to be crazy long because I decided to do something a little different. I’m returning to my old style where I’d throw a really big and more serious post on the weekends as opposed to the more personal ones on Wednesday. As such, today’s long post is going to be a defense of the concept of Immortality as a desirable thing.
Addictively Fun. A good 5-15 min time waster.
But just so all of the rest of you out there who don’t care about that at all don’t get bored, Here’s a Link to a Free to Play Flash Game called Nanaca Crash that is really addicting and fun. I know most of the site and the game itself is in a foreign language, so let me just tell you that the controls are simple. You click and hold at the beginning of the game when the needle is at the angle you want, then you release when the power meter reaches the power you want. From there you can use your special ability to hit the target and keep the game going. The goal is to get as far as you can, and there are obstacles that help and some that hurt. I’ll let you go figure the rest out yourself, and I’ve kept some fun secrets about what the goal of the game is, exactly, so go have fun.
If you’re no interested in that, there’s a chance that you haven’t yet read my Last Blog Entry because I posted it on Thursday instead of Wednesday, so go read that. Sorry about it being late, I was really busy on Wednesday.
Now on to the main event.
A Defense of Immortality
Yes, Please.
Before I begin, let me say that I am going to try and avoid the opposite end of the spectrum here. In other words I’m hoping to never come to the point where I say Immortality is good because it means you don’t die and death is bad. I don’t want to touch the death issue. Not because I don’t think that on a base level it is a valid point of discussion, but rather because almost nobody I’ve talked with agrees with my (Death x Always) = BAD hypothesis, and I want to avoid that inherently downward spiraling discussion.
Creeeeepy.
That’s not to say that this Immortality thing might not garner the same results, but I haven’t tried it yet, so it’s about time I did.
So what is this exactly? It is what the title says it is. I’m going to state right now, flat out, that Immortality is an inherently good thing. Note that I’m not trying to prove that it is possible. That would be a different argument altogether.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t caveats!
Don’t misunderstand me. This is not about living forever in a sate of decay or something. In fact, before I define the kind of Immortality I’m talking about, let me talk about what it is not.
What the Immortality I’m Talking About is Not…
I feel so sorry for this guy.
1. It is not Invalid Immortality – The kind of Immortality I’m going to talk about is not the kind where, yes you’re immortal, but maybe you’re crippled and will never walk again. This is not an Immortal who is ragged and sick. This is not an Immortality with blindness, tumors, rashes, boils, leprosy, small pox, bleeding, gushing, crawling, slinking, puss ridden pores, nadda. Yes, alright, obviously Immortality would be teh suck with those ailments. Why am I rejecting this kind of Immortality you ask? Because I’m trying to distill the fundamentals of Immortality down to its essence to see if it is fundamentally good or bad or neither. Sickness, malformation and handicaps are not inherent parts of Immortality. They are bad in and of themselves. Once you add them to anything, that thing gets worse. Take sex for example. Awesome, right? What if you threw in puss-ridden pores and leprosy into the mix? Not so great now, huh? Does that mean sex is bad? Heck no! It just means that puss-ridden pores and leprosy are bad, and they can ruin any good thing. So since they aren’t inherent to the Immortality system, I’m tossing it out.
Getting Oooooolder
2. It is not Aging though Immortal – In other words you don’t get older and older and older as the years pass by. In some ways this ties back to number 1, as really the aging process is about becoming hampered by various ailments. Eventually you turn into a ball of flesh that, while living, cannot move without immeasurable pain, is likely blind and has something horrible like Alzheimer’s and can’t even remember why it is there. I reject this type of Immortality largely for the same reasons as number 1, but also because while aging is a natural part of mortal life, it seems counter-intuitive that the process of aging (which in many ways is slowly dying) would be a part of Immortality, so out goes type number 2.
I'm sad cause I kill and kill cause I'm sad
3. It is not Living Dead Immortality – The Immortality I’m going to talk about doesn’t involve shambling about whining for brains. Nor is it the kind of Immortality that stalks the night looking to feast on the blood of the living. While these types of Immortality are fascinating, I’m not going to talk about them, and for pretty much the opposite reason as 1 and 2. Where 1 and 2 were elements that are foreign which would be added to Immortality, this type of Immortality is actually a condition in which Immortality is an element within a greater whole. Zombification is a sort of curse or plague in which Immortality is a symptom. It is the same with Vampirism or some other form of mystical curse or condition. Immortality, while perhaps an inherent part of those conditions, and an aggravator of those particular curses or circumstances, is not inherently a part of them. In other words Immortality can exist outside of those conditions wholly independent as a concept.
Beware!
4. I’m also not talking about enhanced Immortality, cybernetic implants or nano technology. I’m not talking about the supposed Immortality of memory or of symbolism, or of “leaving something behind.” All for similar reasons as above, or because it is not true individual Immortality.
So that’s what I’m not talking about. Time to get to what I AM talking about.
I’m going to take this definition of Immortality by that exhibited by Biblical heavenly beings, such as Angels, as well as that of mythical figures such as the Greek gods, or otherwise. I’m focusing primarily on the biblical understanding because, quite frankly, for being immortal the various gods of Greece, Egypt, the Norsemen and the Chinese actually find plenty of ways to die, whether it be overthrowing one another, some sort of Ragnarok, or even a part of their yearly cycle of death and life (thus showing seasonal attributes.)
Cool Beans
Olympians
The Immortality I want to address is one in which the bearer of Immortality does not age, remains(excepting notable examples of various mythologies such as Hephestus) at a state in which their physical nature is at its pinnacle of life, and where their existence is not inherently cursed, like a vampire.
But it is also two fold. Because I consider Biblical based Immortality as the pinnacle, and because what we will experience in Heaven is so vastly different from here on Earth, I’m going to separate this into two categories.
Category 1 = Immortality on Earth as it is now.
Category 2 = Immortality in which others share Immortality and the world is in a paradise situation.
I’m sure it will become clear(if it already isn’t) why I separated the two.
Since the argument over the goodness of Immortality normally revolves around a singular Immortal, in other words Category 1, we’ll start there.
The easiest way to go about this is to refute arguments made by popular media and thought. So let me list the charges against Immortality and deal with them one at a time.
Bored Now
Charge 1. – Immortality would get boring really fast. What would you do? Regular daily life would become practically meaningless and the world would seem to fade away to a dull gray. Who would want to keep living through all of that?
Answer 1. – This is a popular assumption that almost every portrayal of Immortality in modern media accepts carte blanche. First it IS an assumption. Nobody that we know of has been Immortal to tell us this fact, and secondly even if there were such a person it may only tell us about his personality and not the truth of the matter. Perhaps he is already a boring person?
After all, if the only thing I did for eternity was eat sleep and drink (why not include alcohol if you’re immortal) or even if he only socialized and gossiped, OF COURSE that would get boring. I’m bored just thinking about one afternoon of that. That shows more about the scope of his existence than it does of the potential of Immortality.
For my evidence I’m not going to rely on a supposition based on an experience that doesn’t exist, but rather one that does.
I love reading, and yet even if I were to devote my entire life span to reading I could not even begin to scratch the surface of all the good material (not even mediocre or bad material) that has been written. What’s more, even as I live and read, new books are being written, new stories, characters, ideas and worlds that I may never get to experience because there simply isn’t enough time. Similarly, I love playing video games. Yet I have a backlog years in the making, not to mention a present and a bright future filled with more quality games than I could ever play.
So. Many. Videogames!
I love watching movies, but how little great material have I watched? How much is yet to be made? I’m so busy with my other Hobbies that I don’t have almost any time whatsoever to dedicate to pursuing fantastic art or music! How many artists have I never even realized existed because of my lack of time? What of architecture? What of foods? What sports have I not yet played? Dances I have not yet learned? What cities have I not yet visited? What wonders of the ancient and modern world? All of these things could fill millennia, and that is just what exists now. What of what will be made in the future?
So many things to write!
Forget consumables for a moment. What about all the things I have yet to produce? What words have I not yet written? Ideas I have not yet spun? Music I have not yet played(and that is once I learn how!)? Paintings I have not yet laid to canvas?
Forget creative production for a moment. What have I not yet learned? What intricacies of history elude me now? What quirks of economics? What philosophies and politics? What sciences do I not yet understand? There is a massive world of knowledge that no man can absorb the millionth of in his lifetime, and yet that knowledge is being expounded upon daily.
Aaaaw, Science.
AAAAA! SCIENCE!!!
And what if you did ever catch up on everything (as if anyone could,) does that mean you’re out of things to do? Heck no! Become history yourself! Impart your knowledge to others, make peoples lives better, study with the best and brightest to push science to its furthest extent, help man learn how to reach the stars quickly, economically and safely, and then view them yourself! Suddenly through your own actions the entire universe is open to you. How could anyone who is truly willing to live life ever get bored?
Daaaaaw!
And that is all not even taking into account the relationships you’ll have. The friends you’ll make and spend time with, the people you’ll love, and cherish. How much greater is life when there are loved ones to share it with?
Charge 2. – This springs directly out of my last paragraph from Answer 1. Why would anyone want to be immortal if they have to witness all of the horrible things that happen in this world? All the death and dying would surely be unbearable. You wouldn’t want to live through the deaths of your loved ones, would you? And if you were Immortal you would live through the deaths of millions of friends and family and loved ones! How could anyone want to be Immortal like that?
Answer 2. – This is perhaps the biggest and most hard-hitting charge against the inherent goodness of Immortality. And my answer?
You’re going to experience all that anyway. Mortality doesn’t protect you from watching your loved ones die. It happens. It will happen. It kills me to think that one day, should I personally live to see it, I will see both sets of grandparents die, as well as my parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and perhaps even my siblings and future spouse. God forbid I live to see my children die but it is possible, and all the more horrible for it. That is horrible, terrible, and Mortality doesn’t protect you from it.
So what about having to live through generations more of death and problems?
Tell me, is living life worth it, though you already know people you love will die? Is it worth knowing people and growing to care for them at all? You will see them die, if you live long enough. So is it worth it? If it isn’t worth it, then why haven’t you killed yourself already?
I’m going to assume the answer is that living life, loving others and doing all that despite knowing that you will see them die is worth it. So if it is worth it now, will it not be worth it after a million years? Are people in the future inherently not as valuable to know and love as people now? Of course they are worth it. People are worth it.
Would it wear at you seeing millions of years of death? Probably a bit, but also keep in mind how much life you’ll see. It is a fine balance, but if that balance is worth it not, then it is worth it later. Heck, if you want to get cynical about it, you might even get used to it after a few millennia and you just accept it philosophically as natural if unfortunate.
So, in short, If knowing people is worth it despite living through their eventual deaths, then an Immortal life full of knowing and caring for people is just as worth it, despite living through their deaths.
What if he was older than her? Brain Warp!
Charge 3. – Relationships are all fine and good, but what about partnership relationships? Wouldn’t it be hard to deal with your partner getting older while you’re not?
Answer 3. – Believe it or not, this is the hardest charge for me to answer. You know why? Confessional time, people. I’m shallow. I’m kinda lustful. I know the luster and attraction of youth and youthful beauty. I also recognize this problem in myself and I try my best to regulate it. I may have shallow tastes, but I have a sense of loyalty and a desire to never hurt anyone if I can help it, and I believe that this is stronger than my desires and will keep me faithful to Katie for as long as we both shall live, so help me God.
And yet, I must admit, that if I stayed young while Katie aged, it would be harder for me to do so. The aging process is a sort of buffer. If you can stay faithful till you get wrinkly it is easier to stay that way because fewer people would have you anyway.
I say “harder” not “impossible.” Were Katie to age and I to stay young, I would hope my better nature… I would believe and have faith in my better nature, and in my moral compass and relationship with God, not to mention my loyalty and love for Katie, to keep me faithful until long after she would pass on (let that day come in the farthest flung future!)
It is a hard answer that not everyone could take, quite frankly, and perhaps their partner would have to know going in that the relationship is transitory; but that doesn’t mean that the answer is invalid. The negative aspect is not inherent to Immortality, but rather an unfortunate affect of Mortality.
Now since I can’t think of any more charges off the top of my head that isn’t in some way covered by the charges above or “what the Immortality I’m talking about isn’t” section, I’m going to use Answer 3 to transition over into the second half of my Immortality discussion, otherwise known as: Category 2 = An Immortality in which others share Immortality and the world is in a paradise situation.
Now, as fantastical as Category 1’s situation was, we’re going to get even more esoteric and religious now, because, quite frankly, Paradise is always associated with some sort of Religious ideal (except for certain Utopian theories posited by the likes of Karl Marx or Ayn Rand, but I’m tossing those and others like them aside because that they both are fundamentally flawed due to simple human nature -as history has shown us-, and are thus impossible to set up under our current, non-Paradise non-Religiously re-created scenario.) – I know that some would disagree with me, but I firmly believe that is another discussion entirely (and another can of worms.)
This section will be blessedly brief, largely due to the fact that its major detractions are fairly simple.
Not Inflamatory at All...
Charge 1. – That’s impossible, Religion is wrong.
Answer 1. – Whether or not Religion is wrong is another issue entirely, thank you very much. If you’re in this discussion you’re already accepting the theoretical existence of Immortality as a reality, so I don’t see why you can’t push your suspension of disbelief a little further for the sake of experimental thought. If you can’t get over it, skip to my conclusion, or skip the rest entirely. You should have already deduced my conclusion by now.
Charge 2. – Assuming Paradise is possible, and assuming everyone is immortal, what would happen when the world fills up with people? Wouldn’t we run out of room?
Answer 2. – Let me get out of the way first that I do not accept the notion that there will be no reproduction in Heaven. I do not believe that is what Jesus meant when he said we will be like the Angels in Matthew 22:30 (that is also another discussion.) So that means I can’t resort to the notion that there won’t be a booming population in heaven.
First of all, there are probably ways outside of having sex infrequently to control the limits of the population. Second of all, there are a LOT of things to do in Heaven (I controversially believe that many forms of entertainment we know and love currently and many we don’t will be in heaven. Not to mention all the sorts of things I described under Category 1 Answer 1.) We might be a little busy to be doing the bunny rabbit thing all of the time.
Awesome
Thirdly, there is a whole Universe to expand into. With strong minds and capable bodies, (not to mention any possible restoration of supernatural abilities we might have had in Eden) we have all the resources we need to take to the stars and colonize new worlds, terraforming rocky barren worlds into new paradises and homes for the ever expanding Human population.
Fourthly, even if we ever ran out of Universe, God would likely make some more.
Fifthly, whose to say that we won’t live in parallel-dimensions, with infinite Parallel Earths providing homes to inter-dimensional beings such as our perfected selves?
These solutions are hypothetical, but since the problem is similarly hypothetical, I’m okay with that.
With millenia to work on it, this might be an avoidable fate.
Charge 3. – Wouldn’t we eventually run out of resources?
Answer 3. – Believe it or not, God created us with the ability to defecate. Doesn’t sound like paradise if you have to pinch a loaf? Haven’t you ever had a good sit on the throne? That can be some satisfying times, now. And you’re replenishing the resources of the earth simultaneously. Wonderful!
Even if there is some loss of molecular structure involved, there is no reason our superior intellect can’t find a way to re-enrich the soil through scientific means.
If you’re talking straight up material, like metal and stone, there are always asteroids and other heavenly bodies.
And here at the end I’ll play the Deus card and just say: God will provide.
Hey, I held it till last after loads of evidence so don’t point your LOGICFAIL finger at me, all right?
Time to split off from my normal modus operandi here, because I can’t think of other charges that are worth mentioning. If everyone were Immortal, we wouldn’t have to deal with the negatives of having other people die. That kind of Immortality is golden.
Some of you out there are looking at all of this and going, “Yeah, but everything you mentioned is kinda like sickness and handicaps isn’t it? I mean, none of that stuff is inherent to Immortality, right? So ultimately you’re breaking your own rules and your entire argument in invalid!”
Don't Tell Him He's Invalid
Point taken. You know why I defined this the way I did? To make it interesting. Not only that, but this is the argument people actually have, whether it’s entirely valid or not.
If I were to make an entirely valid argument, I would have to pare it down to its absolute fundamentals, and suddenly the argument gets short and boring.
The fact that we exist is our only fundamental knowledge, everything else is belief. Simple Existence is where everything meets. Physical material and Abstraction are one at this point. As such, our fact of existence is also our standard measurement of value. If we were to increase that existence in any way, it is considered a good thing by our standard of value.
So if Immortality means the perpetuation of this existence forever, then it receives a value label equal to our own existence in perpetuity. If our mere existence is a value label of 1 or simple-good, then Immortality is good in perpetuity.
Immortality FTW!
Thus my conclusion is: Immortality, as a basic idea and theoretical reality is a fundamentally good thing.
Fin.
Feel free to argue to your hearts content, especially since I’m sure there is some aspect that didn’t come to me when I wrote this. Have a great evening and morning!
- Edward L. Cheever II~
cory said,
February 13, 2010 at 7:17 pm
a short comment for now, more in-depth later.
—-
From the get-go, you make it your aim to “distill immortality to it’s fundamental parts” or something. However, if that is the aim, then you shouldn’t add “eternality” “youthfulness” and other extra notions to it. Occam’s razor: don’t multiply unnecessary entities.
immortality = not mortality. if there is a case to be made that not-youth, not-health, and non-activity are essential to all mortal things, then maybe you can keep it.
—-
after reading a bit more, i see that your *real* goal is to defend the idea that heaven will be neither boring nor detrimental to humans. nobody with a bible in their hands can safely disagree with that statement, but it certainly narrows the conversation from the whole of the field of metaphysical thought, to only those metaphysical thoughts contained in the bible. this seems, to me, to be a bad way of exploring the notion of immortality, as it means that nobody can disagree with you. consider the following:
*holding a bible* “immortality is going to be so nice.”
“yes, the bible does contain a paradisal kingdom of immortal people. you’re right.”
“no, i mean, generally speaking, immortality, not heaven.”
“oh, well, i disagree with that…” gets interrupted
“why? we’ll be happy and healthy and eternally young! the bible says that’s part of it!”
“oh, well, i thought you said you were speaking of immortality generally, not biblically. yes, the bible does say that’s true.”
“so i’m right!”
“well, no, though the bible says so.”
etc.
so good luck with that.
Edward Cheever said,
February 13, 2010 at 8:20 pm
It would seem from your comment that you did not read through to the end. I address the Occam’s Razor scenario pretty much exactly after I finished the Category 2 section.
Also, you must have skipped a massive section in the middle (Category 1) and jumped right down to Category 2 where I talked about the Heaven stuff.
Basically, I’m saying that I would ask you to actually read my post before you tell me what I do and do not say and why it is wrong.
I’m totally cool with you disagreeing with me after that.
cory said,
February 14, 2010 at 3:12 pm
having read it again:
you still pretend at first as if your goal is some objective definition of immortality. yes, you do dump it only a paragraph or so later.
i stand by the charges that you’re not writing on immortality qua immortality, and that you’re instead writing on biblical heaven.
given that you’re writing on biblical heaven, do you have texts to support the (seemingly) primary claim that science and progress will continue, that books will be written, that we’ll colonize planets? I know you don’t, and that’s fine; nevertheless, if you’re talking about biblical heaven, you’ve got to be biblical, right? If you start adding extrabiblical information to it, you might as well say we go there when we die, that there are hundreds of hot virgins and buckets of kfc, that lava is tasty, and zebra are the net result of unicorns mating with tigers. well, in heaven, you know, anything i imagine is true must be true, as it is the fullness of perfection, right?
i don’t disagree that immortality would kick ass. and where you focus on immortality in itself you do an excellent job. there’s a transition there where you make it clear that you’re talking of biblical, paradisal heaven, but throughout the rest of the paper you still use “immortality” as the subject, rather than “eternal life,” which seems shady.
the paragraph on epistemology (what can be known) is worth an entire book. Well, it’d have to be that long to prove your point, anyway, since it is the case that if you actually believe that, then you have no right nor capability to argue with anyone about anything, nor attempt to persuade. Skapeticism *about* something is fine, but questions must come to an end at some point. G.E. Moore put forward a good common sense argument demonstrating the existence of the external world (or at least showing that it’s ridiculous to think otherwise). There are others. It will not be easy to formulate a strong skepticism about *all* things, mainly because that’s completely irrational, thus cannot be demonstrated by logical means.
and anyway, you demonstrate with every waking moment that there is an external world. you have a blog. you pee in the shower. this i normal behavior for a person who believes that the world is real and physical and behaves in a certain way, not the actions of a hard skeptic.
The last bit, giving an arbitrary and low value to the life we have now, is Pascalian BS. It works well for theologians who already think he’s right. Nevertheless, if he’s wrong, and there is no afterlife, then the numbers change. this life is everything, thus worth infinity, and the afterlife is worthless, so zero. believing it in this case leads only to death, with no loss.
and if you don’t live this life as if it IS worth an infinite amount, then what right do we have to an *eternal* life? None, I think, or less.
grammar: A
spelling: A-
theology: A-
philosophy: B-
and it doesn’t reflect on you as a person, geez. i just disagree.
–C
Edward Cheever said,
February 14, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Don’t worry, I’m not taking this as a personal affront. I just sound a lot blunter online than off. Offline I sound positively sponge-like.
My structure and purpose is, I suppose, unclear. A symptom of writing a blog post vs. a philosophical treatise, I think.
Or at least, if I was writing it to be the perfect summation of the topic I might have gone over it a few more times and bounced it off of some people, at the very least.
After reading you comment I think we aren’t disagreeing as much as you think we are. Again I think this may just be a problem with the clarity of my post, but I also think it simply has to do with the fact that I wasn’t being all-encompassing enough.
When I say that the only thing we know is that we exist, I misspeak slightly. We know one other thing: Something else exists. We cannot be absolutely factually sure what that something is (what we experience vs. a projection of some kind) but we know something exists outside of ourselves. So instead of knowing for certain that what we experience is real we must believe it is (for otherwise how could we operate at all?)
You say that I ascribe a minute amount of value to simple existence. I think you misunderstand me. Simple Existence is only the beginning. As the reality of that existence expands, it becomes more valuable.
As I am self-aware, my value is greater than its base value because my reality is greater. I am, for instance, more valuable than a rock. Though we both share the fact of Simple existence at our core, my existence is more valuable because my reality, or the scope of my existence, is greater. I become aware that other things exist, so my reality grows and my existence does as well. I interact with other existence, I eat, I drink, I grow, I learn, and every step of the way my existence becomes more valuable.
The more valuable something becomes does not detract from the value of Simple Existence.
Because something exists it is valuable. It only becomes value-less when it ceases to exist.
Even if something is destroyed to ash, that ash retains some smidgen of value because it exists. The process of reducing something to ash is a negative action, to be sure. Perhaps even definable as a “wrong” or “evil” action (depending on some variables.)
life may be more valuable than an inanimate object because it’s reality is so much greater, but that doesn’t make the rock devoid of value.
When I say that Simple Existence has a base value, I don’t mean that every person is just a base value. We are more than just Simple Existence, even though everything has Simple Existence as a base for Reality.
*sigh* I think I’m just muddying the waters at this point. I’m probably not getting my point across. Ah well. It may just have to sit dormant for now, or until I’m ready for another go at clarifying my point.
glenchen said,
February 16, 2010 at 1:30 pm
1. Sounds like great fodder for a book.
2. You have a pic from Highlander. The problem with having one spouse grow old while the other one does is exactly the opposite of what you think. Rather than “falling out of love” because your spouse is old and wrinkly, you will feel separated from them because you are not experiencing something together. Imagine if you both had cancer and were dying at the same rate. The experience together would be vastly different than if one was dying and the other is being left behind. Believe me, the person being left behind has the shorter end of the stick.
3. Sounds like #3 candidate for Judge is a no-go. Susan suggests Frank Knittel, a board member and retired English teacher, although she doesn’t know if he knows ANYTHING about poetry. The other two of the cabinet (yes, we met Thursday) want to continue to work on finding a judge, but I think we are beating a dead horse. comments?
glenchen said,
February 17, 2010 at 8:27 pm
At least you aren’t doing what I thought at first glance it said: “In Defense of Immorality.”
Edward Cheever said,
February 17, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Lol! I think about that every time I look at my post’s title!
William said,
December 12, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Nice. I’m trying to address the benefits of immortality with one of my graphic novel characters. You are completely right! There are so many books, so many museums, so many languages, philosophies, and sciences to learn. As the millennia pass, the language will warp and change, but your knowledge of it should grow at the same rate, so communication shouldn’t be a problem. The real problems come after the first 100,000 years or so, when our biology starts to change. Assuming Jesus doesn’t return in the next million years, we humans could evolve into practically anything, from jellyfish-potato-people to clouds of flying bugs. And there’s Captain Road-kill, trapped in an outdated human form, desperately working on his FTL drive so he can escape our solar system before our sun’s red giant phase.
Edward Cheever said,
December 14, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Hopefully 100,000 years would be enough to figure that whole FTL thing out, amiright?
glenchen said,
December 13, 2010 at 2:49 pm
William’s comment caused me to revisit this blog. Still great stuff. And some other thoughts.
1. One of the big reasons we can’t conceive of living together is because we don’t have any experience in this area. My understanding is that when we go to heaven a big part of our job is serving as witnesses to what it was like to live in sin (read: be mortal). The whole concept of mortality is foreign to angels and aliens on other planets, just as becoming immortal will take some getting used to on our part.
2. I didn’t notice if you mentioned it or not, but there are those who would argue that you couldn’t appreciate immortality, because the length of our life gives value to each day we live. A mayfly lives for a day; therefore their one day of life must be glorious. A thousand centuries of life would blur our appreciation for that day of life. Or would it? I’m pretty skeptical of that argument, although we will have an advantage over others (see #1 above).
Edward Cheever said,
December 14, 2010 at 11:50 pm
I think the concept that we can only value something because it is transient is false.
The fact that we forget something’s value over time is a fault of our limited perceptions, not the inherent value of a thing.
But really that comes down to a discussion of the nature of”Value”.
Is value something we give to what we perceive? or is Value inherent things, and we either recognize or ignore it?
I tend to believe the latter. Value is inherent.
Intimations of Immortality: Are We Ready for Extreme Longevity, or Do We Even Deserve It? « Shineanthology’s Weblog said,
December 18, 2010 at 7:04 pm
[...] de Grey and David Brin (When Will Life Expectancy Reach 200 Years?), Edward Cheever’s In Defense of Immortality — in mind, I’m going to try to deconstruct a number of faulty assumption about extreme [...]
Intimations of Immortality: Are We Ready for Extreme Longevity, Or Do We Even Deserve It? | DayBreak Magazine said,
December 18, 2010 at 7:22 pm
[...] with Aubrey de Grey and David Brin (When Will Life Expectancy Reach 200 Years?), Edward Cheever’s In Defense of Immortality — in mind, I’m going to try to deconstruct a number of faulty assumption about extreme [...]