Saving the world through immortality

 Posted by on 24 September 2009  Modern Life
Sep 242009
 
I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I was born in 1518 in the village of Glenfinnan on the shores of Loch Shiel. And I am immortal.

I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I was born in 1518 in the village of Glenfinnan on the shores of Loch Shiel. And I am immortal.

According to an article in the Telegraph, immortality for humans is a mere 20 years away.  Through the use of nanotechnology, the aging process can be halted and reversed.  Or, so goes the theory.

When I mentioned this idea to a co-worker, he sighed and said “Great.  Now we’re all going to have to get neutered.”  He didn’t think that human immortality was a good thing at all.

I disagree.  I think human immortality could be the best way to save the planet and the human race.

First:  humans are notoriously short-sighted.  We do what we want – deplete the ozone, pollute water and air, kill off all manner of species and so on.  What do we care?  We’re going to be dead in 50 years anyway.  If suddenly we are all immortal, we’re forced to consider our own futures.  Sure, we can pollute this lake with a new factory today, but what will we use for water five or six decades down the road?

Don’t bother throwing the “but we think of our children” argument at me.  Humans as a whole are selfish creatures that do little self-sacrificing in the long term.  Why else do we tend to kick out our kids when they turn 18?  If my actions are going to directly affect me tomorrow or next year or sometime next century, I’ll learn to be more careful.  If we’re here forever, we’ll become better stewarts of the planet.

My second point relates more directly to my co-worker’s concern.  Overpopulation is becoming a problem now, but the overall solution to it is to ignore it.  We’re going to be dead, remember?  Immortality will force us into space exploration and colonization.

A twenty year mission to Mars to set up a colony?  Not a problem if you’re immortal.  It’s not like you’ll miss out on the prime of your life…   Terraforming?  Sure, it may take thousands of years, but we can wait on our orbiting space stations….

If immortality for humans is soon to be fact (and I have my doubts), there are sure to be growing pains as we learn to  take a longer view of things, but in the end, I’m sure it’ll be for the best.

T. Keith Edmunds

  • http://www.absurdintellectual.com/ Grant Hamilton

    I read somewhere that by the time you get out a couple of generations, you’re no more “related” to your great-great…grand-children as you are to any random person with approximately the same racial background. So why should you care about those distant descendants?

    Personally, I think that argument is a little odious. I’m not related, and don’t know the people on the next block at all, but I don’t go burgling their homes and killing their puppies.

    But I do agree that immortality, one should hope, would let humans learn to take the long view. Think about this, too: Until we live longer, nobody will be able to do anything that takes longer than a few decades to learn. Even now, it can take 30 years or more to achieve mastery in some disciplines, like math and science, so it’s no so far-fetched that we’ll eventually run up against the limit of what we can learn.

    Plus, don’t you want to know how it all turns out? Dying is kind of like leaving the movie before the end.

  • Colin Corneau

    Keep in mind we’re not assured how the human brain stands up to the long term…nanotechnology may be no preventative against that sort of deterioration. Some people think the brain is not designed to really operate well past a century or so…still others think that the sheer accumulation of time from living longer than our allotted lifespan may drive a person insane.

    Considering we still basically know very very little about how our own brain operates, this is a serious concern. A planet of jibberish spouting lunatics, albeit with healthy bodies, is not a real advancement.

    “Why else do we tend to kick out our kids when they turn 18? …”
    Because most of ‘em turn into obnoxious lazy gits unless we do so.

  • thebanana

    At first glance I thought the headline said “Immmorality”. My keen interest soon waned :)

  • Trent

    I’m interested in this. As long as I can still function normally then why not stick around?

    Although, if this happens, it pretty much removes life’s one certainty.

  • Colin Corneau

    You can still die, though, no?

    Accidents, gunfire, exploding nuclear weapons, bear maulings..maybe some diseases?

  • http://www.absurdintellectual.com/ Grant Hamilton

    I would think that nanotech could presumably solve many of the problems of disease and even injury. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were nano-platelets, for example, that would immediately stop your bleeding — even if you lost an arm.

    And imagine nano-memory chips that would eliminate those brain-operating problems.

    Or nano-batteries and nano-heating cells that would keep a person “alive” in hibernation, even if catastrophically mauled, or ejected into the vaccuum of space, for maybe years, maybe decades, until the nano-bots had enough raw material to rebuild the body.

    Or, to build it better.

    That said, I kind of like the sci-fi possibilities of a world of humans, every single one of them perfectly immortal, but existing in constant dread of accident or disease, cowering in isolation like Howard Hughes, or the kids in Final Destination.

  • thebanana

    For a light but interesting take on immortality, I highly recommend “Tuck Everlasting” by Natalie Babbitt. It’s nothing to aspire to.