If science finds a way for humans to be immortal the general public could not gain a hold of it. Simply because it would cause one of two outcomes: the world would become even more overpopulated, or governments would have to put I strict regulations concerning reproduction. But even with this consequence this would lead to many breakthroughs in society, possibly leading to other world changing discoveries. We should not deprive the world of such an opportunity, simply because it may be unnatural. I see no problem in pursuing it, but the consequences could be dire.
Why shouldn't we want to live forever? Just because it hasn't been that way. That's not a good argument. If we can stop death from happening and live forever then we should. If we have to we should quit having kids to make this work. The only reason people object to this is because humanity has developed a Stockholm Syndrome relationship with death.
Even if it is not released to the general public, immortality should be something that is researched and attempted. Figuring out the immortality puzzle can lead to breakthroughs in many other things such as healing and disease cures. However, if it is released to the general population or used, it would need to be used wisely and it would be difficult to control.
For the god objection one of the reasons we've been caught up in these religious myths for so long is that humans have a passion for exceeding all previous limits. It's been said that "we are god's with anuses" we have the possibility to ponder the infinite yet we are doomed to be food for worms. It gives the human condition this exquisite pain as we continue to learn more about ourselves. We are the frontal lobes of the universe, we are the way for the cosmos to know itself. So the evolution of our species is the universes wishes therin and there's nothing wrong with that.
Immortality lead to more than just possible solutions to a problems of life, as great minds can live forever, discovering and rediscovering. This will give an advantage to our scientific knowledge. But let’s look at the disadvantage side first.
There will be more of immortal rich people than there will be in the middle class or the poor. This will only happen during the discovery of an expensive method and it price or procedure will cost much less towards the near future
As for the overpopulated side effect. This causes humans to gulp their fears and venture out into space. Plus it would make space travel a lot more effective as less people will die during a long journey to one earth to another
Immortality defies god? This is a point that would come up in many people’s minds that it’s not according to religion or so what. But however we live in a world where we (as a race) believe that anything is possible until it’s proven (by scientific knowledge)
Now I don’t know more points on the disadvantage side but I may also say that people who live longer may not experience life as much as those with short lives but they will take more risks in life than those with a shorter life span, this will also clear long term depths, and these depths Will not ruin the future of our children’s lives.
However there will be one factor that will remain that will cause a few hindrances than all the above.. Job opportunities! Yes there will be a lack of jobs on planet earth but this can cause many people to go into space for these opportunities. This is an opportunity that can cause us to discover whether we are alone and this (what I may say from mind) will completely prepare us for an invasion as we have an immortal army of space marines and researchers who will protect us.
There will also be the political advantages and disadvantages as this will preserve the previse leaders wisdom and as we conquer (couldn’t find a better world) new worlds, these leaders could be opted to lead these new worlds or colonies of earth into a peaceful and great world, this could potentially stop all armed conflicts as the factor of death and lives will be removed. And that we will fund more on infrastructure, schools or other improvements in our countries.
This will also make greedy people lose their greed as they will find having more can also be having less and that they will help society.
Okay that’s all I have to say but if you find a mistake then please correct me as this topic has tons of advantages and disadvantages. AND please note I am a high school student and if you found any spelling or grammar mistakes, is probably because of that reason
I don't care how destructive it could be for the human race if achieved, I think scientists should pursue it anyway just to prove that it is possible, that it can be done and to increase available scientific knowledge. Then they can adapt the information for use in other areas, such as organ replacement etc.
Also it would probably only be biological immortality that they achieve anyway, so it's not like people would be able completely unable to die.
In life you could be the most successful or happiest person but in the end you meet the same fate as everyone else, death. It is the one thing humans really can't conquer. If science found a way to conquer this it would be the greatest breakthrough in the history of mankind.
If the idea of biological immortality offends some people we could try articial immortality which means making a buckypaper composite body and organs including the brain and heart by making it from buckypaper thay has been subject to exyreme pressure in the way the nano scientists in china discovered that made buckypaper amorphous but retain its crystalline structure that's strong enough to indent diamond we should also make the buckyball brain fully functional behaving identically to our brain and if that's donr we should transfer our minds conciousness all form to the brain of that srtificial body of buckyball no consequence to population size as well
Artificial immortality without reproduction there's no consequence thier and no reason to fear overpopulation so we should make a choice of making a fully functional body out of buckypaper that has been subject to extreme pressure that chinese nano scientists did to make it amorphous and crystalline yet strong enough to indent diamonds same with the organs and making an artificial brain out of that type of buckypaper that I mentioned above so that you can transfer your own mind into the artificial body complete with fully functional brain so that those who desire it can do it without disrupting population we just have to wait till mind transfer is possible for that
-The most visionary billionaires fund such projects and believe (Peter Thiel, for example)
-After the computer revolution and the Internet is one of the biotechnolique revolution that turns into information technology (sequencing costs less than $ 1,000 but that's not all: haylcon molecular, genome compilator will transform by 25 biology code understandable by the general public
Sorry for the mistakes I'm French
Immortality would not only make the world even more overpopulated, but it would also take away the value of everything. Being alive is a privilege and so are the other little things in life. Knowing you're going to live forever takes away what's special in everything that happens to us and around us.
No because it messes with nature and God! God created us to live and die. So why would scientists do it. The way the world is now, people would not accept the fact of immortality. Everyone would want to be immortal, and people shouldn't. I say NO! GOD didn't want this!
Its unmoral and we as human should not have the right to decide how long we live for, that decision should be left to a higher power (GOD). Also even if we become immortal what will we do with a full earth. We our self might be immortal but not our supplies that we need. Also i would assume that life would be pretty boring after a while.
No i think as soon as somebody is able to live forever they would loose interest and value in everything they had in life. They would not feel lucky if they had something as it wouldn't matter anyway as they have a whole eternity to find it. You wouldn't have the fear of losing something and everyone would become sick of each other. Also not everyone would want to become immortal making protests and maybe wars. Wars for resources would mess up.
Scientists should not pursue immortality. That would be messing with the natural way of life and how things are supposed to go. There are reasons beyond our understanding for us being here and how the way the world works. We live, create life among each other, and we die. That is our natural world.
Immortality seems, to me, to be the most selfish thing one can desire. It's natural not to want death for yourself or loved ones but (to quote Yoda!) it is a natural part of life. I believe there is a natural order to things and part of that is the end of old minds and the start of new ones with new perspectives, building on those that came before. In addition (and I know this depends on your religious/spiritual outlook), death may not be the end of things. It is an experiment I hope to run one day... Though hopefully not for several decades more yet!
I can see why a lot of people are saying that Immortality is a good thing and I also used to support for Immortality. But after this hit me it was clear that Immortality should not be pursued.
- Without death there is no meaning to Life or even living life. Life and Death is a never ending cycle that must not be tampered with. It is like Yin and Yang, Black and White, Good and Evil.-
We must have a balance for death to bring new life and for people to enter into heaven. It would be a curse to have immortality because when you're friend pass away and you're the only one there you'd wish you were god and you won't enter heaven when you're time comes and nothings forever not even the universe is.
While not everything that's natural is good, the inverse applies. Not everything that gives humanity power over nature is good. Look at us! We already abuse our technology-granted power to the max every day!
The whole idea just feels short-sighted. Proponents talk about the individual concerns of death (pain to families, physical pain felt as the body ages, etc.), but they miss the big picture as to the potential societal effects.
To quote one episode of Doctor Who, "the dead outnumber the living," and that won't change anytime soon. Humanity's population is already pushing the Earth's carrying capacity, if it hasn't outright surpassed it already. Assuming we don't all stop giving birth, or decamp large numbers of us to space (which probably wouldn't happen before the overpopulation became too much), stopping death would send our numbers through the roof! Kurzgesagt points out that we may simply be able to choose how long we live. But would we avail ourselves of that, though? What are the odds that we wouldn't stubbornly cling onto life, even in the face of overpopulation? Plus, societal pressures may not be so forgiving of death at all. Remember, suicide used to be illegal in many countries, and still is in some.
Carrying off of that, some people aren't too fond of continuing to live. There's a reason assisted suicide is becoming a hot-button topic! Plus, I don't think even the worst of criminals deserves the double-whammy of immortality and life imprisonment.
Additionally, death is an agent of renewal that helps make way for the living! In addition to the population control issue mentioned above, death helps society adapt. In medieval England, for instance, women and peasants gained more rights in the wake of the Black Death due to a lack of manpower. Also, one of the big reasons Spain became democratic was Francisco Franco's death. Would you want an immortal Franco? While the inverse can be applied (e.G. An immortal Mr. Rogers), I just don't think it's worth it.
It's not that I don't like the idea of people not dying (I'd certainly miss members of my family if they died), it's just that that given how we treat nature and each other now, I don't think we can be trusted with such a powerful tool. In many ways, I'd actually prefer a scenario like the "uploaded consciousness" post-singularity scenario. That way, our minds could be preserved, but they wouldn't take up as much space or resources as our mortal bodies. The physically living might even be able to consult the digitally living for advice on how to live in the real world. Physical life could become a developmental stage. I'll take mental immortality over physical immortality any day of the week.
Still, while this may sound insensitive, I'd rather die than live in a world of immortality. I think 100 is a good enough maximum age for me to live.
Morality will be gone. Yes, if we could achieve immortality then there will be no limit in what we can do. We can gain so much knowledge and new discoveries. With time being limitless, we can make the impossible, possible - And that is the problem. If people realise that there is no limit in hat he can do, then he would think highly of himself. Many people would compete for power. Many people would play God. Just imagine a world like that. Would you want that?