Weird Science: When we become immortal

[J T]

I've decided to start a new series of threads that I'm calling Weird Science.

Basically, I'll start new Weird Science threads to talk about crazy futurist ideas that exist somewhere on the boundary between science and science fiction, and hopefully we can have some fun in running with the ideas and their implications.

Let's begin by never ending. That is to say, let's talk about the feasibility of immortality. Now, I think true immortality is a very long way off. I don't think we can be in the middle of an explosion and still live. But what if we could at least halt aging? Or, like a lizard's tail, regenerate a damaged or severed appendage?

Is this idea impossible? Not if you ask our jellyfish friend the turritopsis dohrnii, which is the only creature that doesn't seem to die of aging. When it gets old, injured, or overly stressed, it reverts back to its early colonial stage as a polyp and can essentially become a "baby" again and grow old again, while skipping the whole death process. My understanding (which in full disclosure, is limited) is that it does this through a cellular process called transdifferentiation, wherein one mature somatic cell transforms into another somatic cell. It's sort of like what happens with stem cells, and it just keeps using this process to never die. Can we study these jellyfish and animals that can regenerate limbs to learn ways to adapt their abilities to our own biology? If you reverted back to an infantile state and redeveloped, could you even say you are the same individual anymore?

In the area of biogerontology, Dr. Aubrey de Grey claims that the first humans to live past the age of 1000 have already been born. He has a background in computer science and engineering, but a PhD in biology. He views senescence (damage from aging) as an engineering problem, left around in humans from the imperfections of evolution. He notes that life depends on metabolism and the avoidance of pathology. Though there are many processes in metabolism and many processes in pathology, there are only seven known types of damage from metabolism that result in deterioration when aging. He has thus outlined the seven categories of damage, and proposed solutions for each of them. He calls these potential solutions Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS). Read in more detail here. If de Grey is right, then we all may one day not have to die. If you've ever seen pictures of him, he has a fantastic Rip Van Winkle beard, so I think he may have already figured out how to live forever a long time ago and is now just cuing the rest of us into how we might do the same.

So, if we could live forever, how would that change your experience of life?

*Would your life lose value without the threat of death?
*Would you get lazy knowing you always had more time?
*Obviously, population control will be a huge problem: how do you decide between letting old people continue living and letting new babies be born? Who gets to live? Will only the wealthy be immortal since they already have all the power and can control much of how this plays out so that it works in their favor?
*How would religions make sense of this when they spend so much time focusing on preparation for the after life, reincarnation, or just plain acceptance of death?
*What would immortality do to our cultural meaning of suicide? Currently, you can't have a doctor assisted suicide unless you prove you are mentally healthy enough to make that decision and only have 6-months left to live. Would we still tell people they need to be mentally healthy to die by suicide peacefully, or would we insist that mentally unhealthy people go on living indefinitely until we know they are of sound mind to kill themselves?
*What happens when you've lived long enough to know pretty much everyone else who is alive?
*What does it mean for evolution if we stop procreating and dying? Will we stop evolving? Is this an ideal end state, or do we continue to explore new ways of changing and adapting our genetic code as a species?

[MrPopo]

*Would your life lose value without the threat of death?

Existence itself is value. Death is the end of that value; if anything not having death increases the value, as I now have more time to do more things.

*Obviously, population control will be a huge problem: how do you decide between letting old people continue living and letting new babies being born? Who gets to live? Will only the wealthy be immortal since they already have all the power and can control much of how this plays out so that it works in their favor?

The Red Mars trilogy actually goes into this, as one of the plot points is that the scientists have figured out away to extend human lifespan by centuries, and there is a definite impact in terms of population and the question of emigration from the Earth to Mars (which has a host of logistical and cultural challenges to overcome). I feel like we need to step up the spreading out of the species to allow for such a development, but even so you'll see the Earth probably turn into a giant slum since it's not very feasible to remove a huge enough chunk of the population out onto hostile colony worlds.

I would argue that if death by old age is truly conquered then there's no sense in any babies being born for a very long time. At some point you might need to start kid production again if the population drops too much from externally applied death, but it doesn't have nearly the same urgency it has today.

*How would religions make sense of this when they spend so much time focusing on preparation for the after life, reincarnation, or just plain acceptance of death?

A massive amount of condemnations I imagine.

*What would immortality do to our cultural meaning of suicide? Currently, you can't have a doctor assisted suicide unless you prove you are mentally healthy enough to make that decision and only have 6-months left to live. Would we still tell people they need to be mentally healthy to die by suicide peacefully, or would we insist that mentally unhealthy people go on living indefinitely until we know they are of sound mind to kill themselves?

I think you'd need to really reexamine what it means to be mentally fit to consent to suicide. If unfit is defined as having a chemical imbalance then it seems you should just give them the pills and force a six month waiting period, but after that they're free to do whatever. But if you increase that definition to include people who are mentally disabled or other things that cannot be "fixed", or at least not repaired without a decade of therapy then I'd make the case that we should let them do whatever, as long as it isn't something like jumping off a building. A nice clean suicide booth would be fine.

*What does it mean for evolution if we stop procreating and dying? Will we stop evolving? Is this an ideal end state, or do we continue to explore new ways of changing and adapting our genetic code as a species?

If the species is continuing I don't see an issue here. We are unique amongst the other life forms in just how heavily we use tools to enhance what genetics has already given us. We live and thrive in environments thanks to our technology that our pre-civilized ancestors would never have made it in. I see the future as continuing to use that advantage and conquer new frontiers.

[J T]

Thanks for chiming in MrPopo.

The population thing is really tough. People are very wed to the idea of being able to procreate. Biological clocks get to ticking and it's hard to satiate the desire with anything other than a little nubbin' made of parent-similar genetic goo. You also have to have amazing contraception, since not everyone can be made sterile, since there will still be some ways to die. In fact, you'll have to ensure that not all the women go into menopause (and maintain healthy eggs) and that some of the men maintain healthy sperm. Without any way to reproduce, and the possibility of death in extreme circumstances, even the immortals could eventually wipe out. Perhaps some of humanity would self-select to die naturally, but if not, this could lead to a frightening ruling class of immortals where the ruled class is not allowed to become immortal so that they can be farmed for reproduction in the event of a need for new births. I could even imagine some kind of Hunger Games scenario for deciding who gets to become an immortal after an old immortal shuffles off. This could also lead to assassins and strife.

As for the genetics, I don't think it is a safe assumption that we can stop evolving. Even with the ability to reverse aging, there are always chances for opportunistic diseases. We are already at a disadvantage against bacteria/germs/viruses that can evolve faster than we can because they have such short lifespans. That disadvantage seems likely to amplify with extended human life. It will put us in a race between memetic evolution against genetic evolution. Of course, that's a race we are already in, but if there is a major vulnerability in our memes (in the scientific sense, not the funny cat pictures sense), then the genes of micro-organisms could topple our reign as biggest badasses at the top of the food chain.

But perhaps we'll achieve immortality through encoding all of our biological information into digital information that can then be recreated by some yet-to-be developed 3D printing machines that can (re)produce organism from their base materials, with the proper information. Or maybe our encoded information will allow our personalities to simply exist as ghosts in the machine of robots.

[flojocabron]

[J T]

Just curious, is there anyone here who would not want to live indefinitely, assuming suicide is always a remaining option?

[catnip]

This is an interesting topic that I want to get back to when it's not almost quittin' time.

Anyway, for your most recent question - yeah, I'd like to live indefinitely. Don't see why not, as long as I can end it whenever. I don't see a downside... does anyone else?

[Ack]

Just curious, is there anyone here who would not want to live indefinitely, assuming suicide is always a remaining option?

I think to die would be a grand adventure.

[MrPopo]

Just curious, is there anyone here who would not want to live indefinitely, assuming suicide is always a remaining option?

I think to die would be a grand adventure.

To live will be an awfully big adventure.

[Gamerforlife]

*Would your life lose value without the threat of death?

That's not what gives life value.

*Would you get lazy knowing you always had more time?

Can't possibly be any lazier than I already am LOL, but losing that sense of a clock ticking down would actually make it easier for me to relax and enjoy life more. I could do things in life when it feels right, no rush, no pressure.

*Obviously, population control will be a huge problem: how do you decide between letting old people continue living and letting new babies be born? Who gets to live? Will only the wealthy be immortal since they already have all the power and can control much of how this plays out so that it works in their favor?

Those are tough questions, with potentially uncomfortable answers. Though I suppose if we eventually start colonizing other planets this wouldn't be an issue

*How would religions make sense of this when they spend so much time focusing on preparation for the after life, reincarnation, or just plain acceptance of death?

Who cares? Religion's mostly bullshit any way, and that's coming from someone who actually IS spiritual and DOES believe in a higher power (I chose not to say god due to its religious connotations).

*What would immortality do to our cultural meaning of suicide? Currently, you can't have a doctor assisted suicide unless you prove you are mentally healthy enough to make that decision and only have 6-months left to live. Would we still tell people they need to be mentally healthy to die by suicide peacefully, or would we insist that mentally unhealthy people go on living indefinitely until we know they are of sound mind to kill themselves?

I don't see how immortality would change anything in this area. Suicide is what it is, people who've given up on life. I don't see immortality changing that, or changing how we deal with suicidal people.

*What happens when you've lived long enough to know pretty much everyone else who is alive?

Make them all facebook friends?

*What does it mean for evolution if we stop procreating and dying? Will we stop evolving? Is this an ideal end state, or do we continue to explore new ways of changing and adapting our genetic code as a species?

The next evolution would be spiritual...and I could write paragraphs on my thoughts on that.

[Gamerforlife]

Just curious, is there anyone here who would not want to live indefinitely, assuming suicide is always a remaining option?

I'm all for immortality. I think it's our eventual destiny, living forever.

Knowing myself the way I do, I would NEVER run out of things to do or get bored with life. There's already multiple lifetimes worth of things I can imagine myself doing as I'm typing this. Sometimes I roll my eyes at how movies and TV shows portray immortality as a curse. It would be the most awesome thing ever. I'm ready for it NOW.