Aiming for immortality is essential for the long term survival of our species. The length of our lives changes our perception of time. Imagine the technological advances humans will have made, say in 100years from now: we will have discovered habitable planets tens of light years away, taking 100s of thousands of years to reach and this will only be feasible if we have increased our longevity.
The whole concept of death is based on the assumption that all things are essentially discreet and only tenuously connected. However, if we consider ourselves to be processes, as opposed to objects, it is hard to find a non-arbitrary beginning of the process. The fertilization of an egg is a relatively new beginning point; it used to be birth. Why not say we began when the egg came into being, which was in the mother's ovary before she was born. You get the idea that we can trace this back indefinitely.
We can also trace it forward through the conservation of mass and energy. The "I" we are all parts of is an interconnected universe. The actual end cannot possibly come until the end of the universe.
Come on, of course immortality should be worked towards. The entire profession of medicine is based on this approach: To save life, whenever possible. There is no part of the Hippocratic Oath where it says: I will try to save life, but not too much.
Having said that: No, it's not meant to be a form of illogical immortality (like still being alive after having been chopped into atoms). And I'm moderately surprised that (currently without my post) 75 percent voted against immortality. Although whenever this topics comes up, it seems much like cognitive dissonance: Actually we would want it, but as we cannot reach this goal yet anyway, we just pretend to ourselves a preponderance of its downsides, so that we feel better about our current situation. Equivalently all arguments against immortality fall apart when being strictly analyzed:
Life becomes more valuable when it's finite? Then it follows logically that life should be even more valuable when it's shorter. Thus, refusing medical treatment to patients to make their life shorter and more valuable would be a moral obligation - but I guess no anti-immortality proponent would like to hear that when being in hospital.
Searching for immortality is one of the best ways to develop new medicines and discover more information about biology. It might also allow human beings to live longer, even if the goal is never fully achieved. Knowledge is a good thing. Life is a good thing. Therefore, the goal of immortality is a goal that should be worked towards, yes.
Death is terrifying and so is immortality.
Shouldn't people be able to have a choice though? The chance to see what the world and the universe will become? To be given the opportunity to discover the secrets of the universe over thousands of years of scientific success. To explore the world over and do things that you wouldn't with the threat of death hanging over you?
It's something we will achieve, and soon as soon as 2050 they say we could be able to download our brain waves into a computer then bio-print a new body.
Immortality will result in an even larger number of people inhabiting an already overpopulated Planet.With a mere increase in life expectancy,the population has simply exploded in the last 50 years, so the result of immortality would be disastrous.
Immortality is actually the entrapment of the soul forever in this world.Life would eventually become boring for everyone, and hence the individual may feel trapped after a while.One can also argue that Immortality is immoral because of this, as greedy and materialistic people will choose it, while morally upright, sensible and spiritually oriented people will choose against it, leading to the world becoming a cesspool.
Immortality will also widen the gap between the haves and have-nots.
If you have an army of people who can not die they can kill but not be killed and take over the world. It breaks the ball envy of nature, for example prey is killed by predators. If the predators are taken away the prey overpopulates and depletes its resources. For humans our predator is death and without it we will deplete our resources and overpopulate.
Live a little people it is fantastic going out of your way to have great adventures with great people. The people you will meet and get close to or fight, the places you will see that will take your breath away or inflame your passions, and the sensations you will experience both good and bad.
Knowing you had forever and it would never end wouldn't that make you not truly appreciate these things? Imagine if your really hungry and then you finally eat food, it is the best thing ever isn't it? Well what if your never hungry but always had to eat? It would be a chore. If you live forever you will always be living but you will lose sight of what life is. We were born into this cycle of life and if we leave it we would become detached and have nothing to live for.
Immortality is for the weak who fear death
For one thing, if someone chooses not to become immortal, then their loved ones would be forced to wither away and die of old age and not be able to do anything about it. Also if you give this immortality to someone who had mental problems then they have several life times to plan out some sort of psychotic meltdown.
Eternal life is not as fun as it sounds. The cons greatly outweigh the benefits; sure if you're immortal, you have everlasting youth and immune to disease, but you are forced to watch everyone around you, including friends grow old and die while you live on. Plus how will you deal with the boredom? Once you accomplish everything you wanted to, what next? Additionally, I regard immortality as a violation against nature.