The Ethics of Immortality

[snowcelt]

I re-read a space opera series by Elizabeth Moon which had a major thread of the ethics of immortality. I was struck by Moon's view as to how immortality could play out. I read the old thread (a poll) asking people if they would chose to be immortal if possible.

I wonder if being immortal would be ethical? Moon points out that within any structure motivation is pushed by promotion. Would the youth of a society be motivated if there was no possibility of promotion because all the leaders stay in their lead positions?

I would be interested in anyones thoughts on this.

[Buttercup]

I read the old thread (a poll) asking people if they would chose to be immortal if possible.

Answering only for myself (of course): No.

I wonder if being immortal would be ethical? Moon points out that within any structure motivation is pushed by promotion. Would the youth of a society be motivated if there was no possibility of promotion because all the leaders stay in their lead positions?

That's just one of many very important questions. Most people do not want to give up power. Imagine certain dictators living for hundreds of years (at least).

[slang]

I wonder if being immortal would be ethical? Moon points out that within any structure motivation is pushed by promotion. Would the youth of a society be motivated if there was no possibility of promotion because all the leaders stay in their lead positions?

Isn't that kind of arrogantly assuming that "our" way of doing things would stay the same, given immortality?

[snowcelt]

Isn't that kind of arrogantly assuming that "our" way of doing things would stay the same, given immortality?

I am not sure what you mean by "arrogantly," perhaps naively, because I no not what a society would be like that was immortal. Can I assume that you think that it is arrogant to think that the concept of immortality is not an ethical issue?
Where you saw the ""our"" from is beyond me. As for staying the same, this is what I am asking. How would a world deal with an immortal population? Moon was exploring this in a multi-polity star faring civilization. She brought up the specter of aggression as a means of alleviating population problems. Stability becomes an issue.

[Jens]

I think it's a very hard question to even imagine. But I suppose that one of the reasons that senior people hold on to their positions is that they are aware of their mortality and want to get things done. If we were immortal, then there wouldn't really be any reason to get things done in a hurry. Any dictator could just wait a billion years, so I don't know if that kind of hierarchy would continue to exist the way it does now.

[John Mendenhall]

Answering only for myself (of course): No. (snip)

Think of how many flip-flops one could buy, wear out, and throw away without feeling guilty. Or for me, books, read, and re-sell.

Regards, John M.

[Jens]

Think of how many flip-flops one could buy, wear out, and throw away without feeling guilty. Or for me, books, read, and re-sell.

Could you sell it? If you have infinity in front of you, why not just wait until somebody gets bored and decides to give it away?

[BigDon]

What if your buried in an avalanche?

Or, if it's just functional immortality, (live forever unless something kills you), one could get pretty neurotic about one's safety.

And what youth are you talking about?

You would have to have birth control laws so draconian China would look like a hippy love-in.

[Solfe]

It occurs to me that ethics would depend on what form of immortality you have. If you could die from misadventure, murder, etc. vs. not being able to die at all vs. not having a body to die would each have different ethics.

[John Mendenhall]

It occurs to me that ethics would depend on what form of immortality you have. If you could die from misadventure, murder, etc. vs. not being able to die at all vs. not having a body to die would each have different ethics.

True. We may be closer than we think to very long bodily lives, maybe immortality. With good health, an important issue also. Personal safety then becomes a big issue. Would you be willing to fly if you knew you had a thousand yeas to go, barring accidents?

[slang]

I am not sure what you mean by "arrogantly," perhaps naively, because I no not what a society would be like that was immortal. Can I assume that you think that it is arrogant to think that the concept of immortality is not an ethical issue?

Umm.. that's not what I meant. No, what I'm getting at is that given immortality, society may change so much that promotion with respect to others may no longer be a primary goal, and motivation may be directed towards other goals. Would anyone even want to be in charge for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years? Might people live so long that they become so wise that leadership becomes a much less important concept?

Where you saw the ""our"" from is beyond me.

"Our" meaning how we do the society thing with our limitation of lifespan. We make choices in our lives, taking into account that life is a limited resource. I'd love to learn to play a musical instrument as well as some of the people I admire, but at my age I would never achieve that goal without giving up other things. I would like to lead a large company, but to do that I would need to change my career even further away from actual technical work. There's just not enough time to keep doing what I really like until I get bored, and only then pursue other interests. If I knew I'd live forever, I might choose to live my life differently.

But it's very hard for me to imagine just how I would choose differently. So many things would be done differently than we're used to now. And that's why I used the word 'arrogantly', although I could probably have found a better word had I spent more time on it. Is it a valid way of thinking about a society of immortals, extrapolating from how we act as mortals?

As for staying the same, this is what I am asking. How would a world deal with an immortal population? Moon was exploring this in a multi-polity star faring civilization. She brought up the specter of aggression as a means of alleviating population problems. Stability becomes an issue.

Sure, that does seem to be a very big problem.. but I thought you were specifically on the topic of individual motivation and promotion.

[Buttercup]

Think of how many flip-flops one could buy, wear out, and throw away without feeling guilty. Or for me, books, read, and re-sell.

Regards, John M.

Lol!!

I'm thinking along the lines of: Working indefinitely, standing in checkout lines, waiting for red lights to turn green, having to renew driver's license thousands of times...

For potentially hundreds of years? No thanks.

Now if I were independently EXTREMELY wealthy and could comfortably live off investments indefinitely...well, then maybe.

[DonM435]

With immortality, there would be no particular pressure to do something now rather than later. It could lead to rampant laziness (to mix a metaphor).

[Solfe]

Now if you could slow "the clock cycle" of the brain so that years passed like minutes, that would be cool. Of course, decision making would be problematical.

[Frog march]

Now if you could slow "the clock cycle" of the brain so that years passed like minutes, that would be cool. Of course, decision making would be problematical.

seems a bit pointless. You might as well just have a clock who's hands went around fast.

[John Mendenhall]

Since there is plenty of time, interstellar exploration looks a lot more practical.

[mike alexander]

With immortality, there would be no particular pressure to do something now rather than later. It could lead to rampant laziness (to mix a metaphor).

And what's wrong with laziness? You finally have world enough, and time.

[Swift]

You finally have world enough, and time.

Good name for a science fiction novel.

[Buttercup]

The potential (likely) laziness factor is a good point. Knowing one likely has only 75 years of life is THE motivator for accomplishment. It's a race against the clock, period.

[aquitaine]

I wonder if being immortal would be ethical? Moon points out that within any structure motivation is pushed by promotion. Would the youth of a society be motivated if there was no possibility of promotion because all the leaders stay in their lead positions?

I've thought about that, and the best solution I can think of a set of strictly enforced rules to govern such behavior. I call it "The Code of the Immortals". One of these rules is that you can only hold an occupation in a certain field for at most 100 years, after that you have to retire from it, move on to another, and cannot go back to it for a period of maybe 500 years. There would be a provision to allow for a recall for defense related feilds (which in a total situation would include factory work) in times of great crisis and emergency. All immortals would be taught to respect the code, and if they don't they will lose their immortality.

With immortality, there would be no particular pressure to do something now rather than later. It could lead to rampant laziness (to mix a metaphor).

We already have that in France. :P Seriously though, the way to prevent that is to keep our economic system. As long as people need to make money, they'll do work.

[DonM435]

If the U.S. Congress ever accepts term limits, they'll probably be something like no more that 100 years.

[John Mendenhall]

The potential (likely) laziness factor is a good point. Knowing one likely has only 75 years of life is THE motivator for accomplishment. It's a race against the clock, period.

Tickticktickticktick . . . .

Are we wasting our time with this thread?

Tickticktickticktick . . . .

Aarrrghh !!!

Tickticktickticktick . . . .

Let's do something useful. Big Don, how about a sea story? Tell us about unreps.

[mike alexander]

Good name for a science fiction novel.

Yes,

But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near

[caveman1917]

Would the youth of a society be motivated if there was no possibility of promotion because all the leaders stay in their lead positions?

On the other hand, the reason why the number of positions of power stays roughly the same is because the population (under mortals) stays roughly the same. If people are immortal, then adding a bunch of youth means adding a completely new subset of society (think of it as adding a new colony), since they are not "replacing" anyone, and that subset then requires its own positions of power where these youth can try to get into. So i don't really see the problem there.

[DonM435]

Seniority might be less important when comparing someone who's served 135 years with someone who's served merely 110.

[nosbig5]

More people = more unemployment = more poverty = more violence
The problem might take care of itself

[Perikles]

Knowing one likely has only 75 years of life is THE motivator for accomplishment. .

Oh my god. I'm not going to have time even to finish this re

[Ara Pacis]

We're already having problems with BabyBoomers refusing to give up their positions and die to make room for their children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren.

Perhaps we could resolve this problem with future tech like mind uploading or suspended animation. After a certain amount of time living normally, people over a certain age must either leave civilization by going into the wilderness to live or die on their own (kinda like in several SF stories) or go into suspended animation where they can be woken up periodically for visitations.

Several of the issues with longevity/immortality and human nature may not be easily resolvable. Studies suggest that humans have a limited capacity for memories, leading us to forget things. So, we'd have to keep relearning and using other forms of recording (like we use photos and diaries now) or we might invent implantable cybernetic adaptations. Humans tend to experience "hedonic adaptation" that tends to make humans want more and more with regards to their desires, which can have both positive and negative initial aspects, but even positive individual desires may lead to socially negative results after a point. Perhaps memory limitation could help with this. The key would be to force people to change their "hedonic setpoint" to a lower level, perhaps by forced austerity like long-term wilderness survival or fasting. Now that I think about it, some religions force such behaviors at regular intervals such as fasting and/or wilderness sojourns, so any legal requirements for the sake of society (sake of the children) would start to either intrude upon or re-invent religion.

[HenrikOlsen]

I wonder if being immortal would be ethical? Moon points out that within any structure motivation is pushed by promotion. Would the youth of a society be motivated if there was no possibility of promotion because all the leaders stay in their lead positions?

I would be interested in anyones thoughts on this.

I expect anything grows stale after you've done it for long enough, I really doubt anyone would stay at the top in the same job forever, especially when you have all of eternity to learn new things.

Apart from that, it's a question about whether we're talking unaging or unkillable immortality, if it's the unaging version, people still have accidents and assassination will also be an option.

[Luckmeister]

We're already having problems with BabyBoomers refusing to give up their positions and die to make room for their children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren.

Well..... sorry about that!!!!! At what age would you like me to kill myself? Have I passed it already?