Morality of Eternal Life?

[abcqwerty123]

Sooo, I watch a ton of anime and there are animes out there such as Ghost in the Shell that are based on a future where we can become full cyborgs and digitize our brains. For me, I cannot find anything moral or immoral about the idea even though whenever you see a story involving eternal life, you will get the "philosophical argument" along with it which I consider filler. However, maybe I am just missing the argument entirely which is why I brush it off as filler.

 

So what does everyone think? Is there anything moral or immoral about choosing to become full cyborg and digitize your brain, if it became possible? Also, what would you do?

 

Personally, under my current thoughts and being unable to find anything immoral about it, I would love to be able to live for much longer then I currently would. I look at the world and see so much disaster and tragedy, but I also see so much beauty and so many interesting things. I feel that you could explore the entire world every day and every day will be an entirely new world and to be honest, that is really exciting. But anyways, I would love to hear what everyone else thinks.

[Culain]

I don't see how it can pose any problems with UPB so no it's not immoral.

 

The topic of immortality is interesting, because we are mortal we know that our time and life is finite so our decisions have greater impact because are always running against a clock, mid life crisis' can really do a strange number of things on people whether it serves as a warning and motivates them or causes them to start settling down as examples. Time gives us urgency.

 

However, let's say we had immortality, I wonder how much we would change or how many new things we would seek out without the stresser of time? This I find would work out on an individual basis but what is the motivator for immortality? People say that'll they do all these amazing things if they just had more time but that could just be the midlife crisis speaking.

 

I'm still ambivalent on the topic, death is scary to me and so sometimes that works as a motivator for immortality, but perhaps this fear of death would be a motivator in itself to propel myself to greatness, however short it may be.

 

Tough question. :/

[abcqwerty123]

I don't see how it can pose any problems with UPB so no it's not immoral.

 

The topic of immortality is interesting, because we are mortal we know that our time and life is finite so our decisions have greater impact because are always running against a clock, mid life crisis' can really do a strange number of things on people whether it serves as a warning and motivates them or causes them to start settling down as examples. Time gives us urgency.

 

However, let's say we had immortality, I wonder how much we would change or how many new things we would seek out without the stresser of time? This I find would work out on an individual basis but what is the motivator for immortality? People say that'll they do all these amazing things if they just had more time but that could just be the midlife crisis speaking.

 

I'm still ambivalent on the topic, death is scary to me and so sometimes that works as a motivator for immortality, but perhaps this fear of death would be a motivator in itself to propel myself to greatness, however short it may be.

 

Tough question. :/

 

Interesting. I didn't think about it that way, but even after doing so, I still would choose to be immortal. I am not sure if I am really motivated by the fear of death or not. I think I just look at death as when it happens, it will happen and I won't even exist afterwards, so being sad that I didn't accomplish something won't exist either. I believe what currently motivates me with life isn't death but desire. I desire to have a great and enjoyable career so I work towards it. I desire to eat chipotles so I drive there to pick it up. I desire to find a wonderful girl so I talk to as many girls as I can. Because I desire the outcome, I act, but I don't ever remember thinking about dying during any of those. I almost feel the opposite, like when I think about dying, I become un-motivated because no matter the outcome, I may not have much time to enjoy my hard work.

 

What does everyone else think on this matter? What do people think about when they are acting to accomplish something through motivation?

[labmath2]

If people do not die, then we would run out of resources. Or as someone put it, many must die so that one may become immortal.

[abcqwerty123]

If people do not die, then we would run out of resources. Or as someone put it, many must die so that one may become immortal.

 

So do you think becoming immortal is immoral? Because the opposite can be said too. Someone must die for someone to live, whether it be the person with the choice to become immortal or the new born baby.

[labmath2]

So do you think becoming immortal is immoral? Because the opposite can be said too. Someone must die for someone to live, whether it be the person with the choice to become immortal or the new born baby.

No it is not immoral, it is just impossible. for too many people to become immortal.

[abcqwerty123]

No it is not immoral, it is just impossible. for too many people to become immortal.

 Sorry, seemed as you were saying it was immoral and why.

[LanceD]

My question would be, do you have a moral responsibility to make way for the next generation?

 

We can only support so many people on the planet, and while this number will obviously change as technology improves there will always be an upper limit. With immortality we would at some point reach this limit. So are we required to die to make room for what's next? Everything else in the universe dies, even stars, and their components parts are used to make what comes next. 

 

So is it right to circumvent this process?

[abcqwerty123]

My question would be, do you have a moral responsibility to make way for the next generation?

 

We can only support so many people on the planet, and while this number will obviously change as technology improves there will always be an upper limit. With immortality we would at some point reach this limit. So are we required to die to make room for what's next? Everything else in the universe dies, even stars, and their components parts are used to make what comes next. 

 

So is it right to circumvent this process?

 

Well, from what I see. One side is basically being forced to die while the other side would be forced to never exist. So for morality, wouldn't it be wrong for people to die for the next generation but okay for the next generation to never exist in order for people to not die?

 

Of course, with all questions involving the future, none of this could happen or all of it plus more could happen, we just don't know. But, what if this happened to the point of turning mankind into digital beings. Something along the lines of killing off your body but having a fully digital one that can feel and do everything your normal body can, just in cyber space. And it was the only way to become immortal. So when people were aging, they can choose to die or be digitized and never come back to reality. What do you think the morality of this situation would be?

 

Sorry, I know people don't like hypothetical questions, but this is actually pretty interesting/fun. =)

[Belluavir]

If people do not die, then we would run out of resources. Or as someone put it, many must die so that one may become immortal.

 

In this scenario you've got a robot body. The robot wouldn't consume as many resources as a human and wouldn't have the capacity to over induldge in resource consumption. There is plenty of energy from the sun and in radioactive materials lying around and likely the reduced need for farming would be postive for the environment.

 

Socially I wonder how this would work. Suicide is quite frowned upon in our society, not taking the immortality option if it's available to you would be tantamount to committing suicide.

 

It also makes me wonder how long people would decide to live. Would I really want to live forever? Having never been faced with the option I don't know if I can honestly answer that question. I don't want to die nearly as soon as I will. But after the first couple million years, will I change my mind? How long do you think you'd want to live?

[abcqwerty123]

In this scenario you've got a robot body. The robot wouldn't consume as many resources as a human and wouldn't have the capacity to over induldge in resource consumption. There is plenty of energy from the sun and in radioactive materials lying around and likely the reduced need for farming would be postive for the environment.

 

Socially I wonder how this would work. Suicide is quite frowned upon in our society, not taking the immortality option if it's available to you would be tantamount to committing suicide.

 

It also makes me wonder how long people would decide to live. Would I really want to live forever? Having never been faced with the option I don't know if I can honestly answer that question. I don't want to die nearly as soon as I will. But after the first couple million years, will I change my mind? How long do you think you'd want to live?

 

True, how long would a person want to live... Well, I guess, we cannot answer this question because we lack any and all knowledge of the future. For all we know, the world could turn into complete crap and there would be nothing to live for. Or maybe the world could become extremely peaceful and the advancements in technology and anything else that comes after will be so intriguing that you will never get bored or want to die. So with that, I guess my only answer would be, I would want to live until I didn't, as long as I had the option to go either way.

[tasmlab]

I always thought that if you could digitize your brain and live bodiless on the Internet, it would resemble a religious view of heaven.  An enterally living 'soul', up in the cloud with access to the entire world's knowledge.

 

(exhales giant bong toke)

[Patrice Stanton]

Many assumptions being made in the comments; w/o quoting I'll go on paraphrases; I hope that's OK (this is my first post). For example: someone needs to die to make room (that doesn't happen now so why in the future?); most would choose this kind of immortality ("most" right now don't know or don't practice, say, the most healthy things in life, or the most efficient, etc.; I for one wouldn't choose an imortality w/o physical sensations or emotional reactions, say, to a beautiful sunset/moonrise/bird/butterfly, etc.); less farming would be better for the planet (what about all the industrial activity to produce & maintain all those "robot bodies," not to mention the power sources.

 

If anything, I'd be betting this "immortality biz" will have a narrow niche market, catering (SHOCKER) to the uber rich. Sad because the only real hope society has is to shake off that ruling elite that's borrowed/spent/and wheeled & dealed us onto the edge of the economic precipice we currently find ourselves perched on.

[JSDev]

No it is not immoral, it is just impossible. for too many people to become immortal.

If immortality were possible, I think naturally over time, people would stop having children. Also, concepts like "children are the future" don't make any sense. We are all the future. Further, there would be no moral progress as there would be no out with old and in with the new.

[ainvision]

If people do not die, then we would run out of resources. Or as someone put it, many must die so that one may become immortal.

I AM sorry but you're just perpetuating the myth of 'genetic immortality' which is fundamentally inaccuate since all future generations must differ from their ancestors and with suffucient differences once acquired there grows less and less attributes from the 'ancestor' as to question any form of inheritance at all.

 

Such a methodology can be focussed upon the ideation of philosophy. Philosophy is essentially morality wrapped into one's own perspective. Philosophy = The ideas that shape one's existence.

 

Death cannot exist without life but Life may possibly exist without death/ending. Most western religions and philosophies concord with this premise. Eastern religions and philosophies generally flow toward a dissolution of the 'bondage' of Self within and beyond physical parameters but they also concord with the fundamentals of western theology.

 

A question I ask every 'philosopher' I meet is, "Do you agree with the premise that all philosophers require a patron?". This is clarified with the question, "Is it true then that only philosophers who are in accordance with the 'ruling classes' of their time are those that become part of written (permitted) history?

 

I know the answer... Do you or Stefan?

[Bradford26]

Here are some of my thoughts about the ideas brought up so far.

 

Making room for the next generation?

 

It is not immoral to take up space and voluntarily exchanging goods. If there are fewer goods and less space because of overpopulation, then those goods and that space will cost more. They will continue to cost more until the price of the space/goods on earth is high enough to make settling another planet an economic choice. Additionally, as these costs go up, so does the cost of having children. When the cost of having children goes up, fewer children are born.

 

Super rich only?

 

Throughout history, technological advances are always very expensive. It follows that super rich people could afford something as advanced as robotic bodies. However, they are also the ones to discover the obscure bugs left in the process. Over time, more and more people will be able to afford this. The danger here is that if this technology beats Libertopia, then there will be "Universal Robotics" legislation arguing that there is a "right to robotics" which will ruin it all.

 

More free time? Maintenance and Costs.

 

Human bodies are fragile and high maintenance. Converting your body to a robot body would only introduce a whole new maintenance schedule that you must follow. A robot would still need to be recharged, oiled, buffed waxed and dried, calibrated, repaired. A robot would eventually get old and need parts replaced. A human mind in a robot body would still be frantically moving forward trying to be prepared for the next problem, all while continually earning enough money to support it. The good thing is, in Ancapistan, cheaper and better technology is always coming out which would help minimize these problems.

 

Backups? Clones? 

 

Just like cell phones can gain new powers by installing an app, these robot-humans have the potential to be really amazing. Memory would suddenly be perfect, comprehension super fast, and you could learn anything instantly. Everyone would want to ensure that their minds were backed up regularly in case something went terribly wrong. How would subconsciousness work? Could you just erase all of your traumatic history? If a robot body went down for prolonged maintenance, would the robot dealership give you a fancy new model loaner body? Also, if you could transfer your mind into a loaner robot, couldn't you also duplicate your mind into another robot? Would the new robot version of yourself believe that he were you?

 

Inside and Outside the Matrix.

 

If your mind were digital, you could easily create virtual worlds to inhabit. Dumb worker robots could take care of all the maintenance and resource gathering and everyone could just exist in virtual worlds. At some point, humans may no longer exist in any real way. The planet would consist of worker robots maintaining computer systems that are constantly chugging away at virtual worlds. If somehow real world human-robots were no longer maintained, there would be no way for the minds to get back out.