What if we could live for a million years?(scientificamerican.com)
scientificamerican.com
What if we could live for a million years?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-if-we-could-live-for-a-million-years/
93 comments
Ever since I hit mid-forties a while back and realised that chances are 'the road ahead is shorter than the road behind', I honestly don't remember ever feeling truly bored. Even while doing tedious stuff like waiting for a bus or in a waiting room, I'll find something to occupy my mind; reading, doing a crossword, doodling, or just watching the world go by.
When I was a youngster, on the other hand, I was quite capable of complaining; "I'm bored!" even when surrounded by all my toys, books and the television and with the sun beaming in the sky.
I think boredom is a luxury of youth.
When I was a youngster, on the other hand, I was quite capable of complaining; "I'm bored!" even when surrounded by all my toys, books and the television and with the sun beaming in the sky.
I think boredom is a luxury of youth.
>until boredom overtakes them.
What's wrong with being bored? I only live 100 years and I spend the majority of my life being bored. I want to be immortal so I can spend eternity being bored.
The people who claim they don't want to be immortal because they don't want to be bored don't get human psychology... Humans generally prefer being bored over being dead, period.
What's wrong with being bored? I only live 100 years and I spend the majority of my life being bored. I want to be immortal so I can spend eternity being bored.
The people who claim they don't want to be immortal because they don't want to be bored don't get human psychology... Humans generally prefer being bored over being dead, period.
I think the value of boredom is that it nudges to do something. Introspection, creativity are the best examples that come to mind.
Being bored because of having literally nothing interesting left to do sounds depressive. I don't know what the novel's idea was, but this is what I would tell if I was going to write such a novel (alas, I'm not bored enough to do that).
Being bored because of having literally nothing interesting left to do sounds depressive. I don't know what the novel's idea was, but this is what I would tell if I was going to write such a novel (alas, I'm not bored enough to do that).
I don't think anyone really knows what or how people's thoughts would change if they were to live to a thousand years (or a million, whatever).
Given that, I think there are probably different feelings which we all call bored. There is bored in the immediate term, bored in general, and ennui.
Given that, I think there are probably different feelings which we all call bored. There is bored in the immediate term, bored in general, and ennui.
That notion goes both ways. How do you know we'll be so bored that we'd give up immortality? Extrapolating from information we already have I'd say we get plenty bored with about 80 years of life... I think we'd do well with another million.
> Humans generally prefer being bored over being dead, period.
Solitary confinement sounds like the ultimate form of boredom. If you were locked in it with no hope of release, there's a good chance you'd eventually start looking for ways to commit suicide.
Solitary confinement sounds like the ultimate form of boredom. If you were locked in it with no hope of release, there's a good chance you'd eventually start looking for ways to commit suicide.
We have examples of this in modern society. Actual prisons where people can spend an entire lifetime.
Most people don't commit suicide.
Most people don't commit suicide.
> We have examples of this in modern society. Actual prisons where people can spend an entire lifetime.
> Most people don't commit suicide.
Eh, not so much. Most solitary confinement in modern prisons is temporary and prisons have polices to prevent suicide (that are not perfect, but are still effective to some degree). Solitary confinement, even as it exists, definitely increases suicidal ideation.
> Most people don't commit suicide.
Eh, not so much. Most solitary confinement in modern prisons is temporary and prisons have polices to prevent suicide (that are not perfect, but are still effective to some degree). Solitary confinement, even as it exists, definitely increases suicidal ideation.
>increases suicidal ideation.
Like suicide prevention ideation does not mean all people in solitary confinement want to commit suicide. I venture to argue that most people won't.
Like suicide prevention ideation does not mean all people in solitary confinement want to commit suicide. I venture to argue that most people won't.
That's very similar to Ashildr in Dr. Who. The character was an immortal who did not have perfect memory. She would write down her memories, but would sometimes rip out pages or burn entire journals to let her memory fail and then forget. She survives to the end of the universe and then a bit more, in the show at least.
https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Ashildr
https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Ashildr
This is not a serious article. There are many topics they could have discussed in depth but the biggest miss for me is that they did not talk about human psychology. Human brains are not evolved to handle a million years of noise and notifications. There would be an incalculable amount of damage to a person's personality from all the ups and downs and vagaries of life.
So many of our physiological systems and the way our consciousness works will have to change unrecognizably that the being that exists after these transformations can no longer be called human. If a thing thinks, it will be finite and want to be.
So many of our physiological systems and the way our consciousness works will have to change unrecognizably that the being that exists after these transformations can no longer be called human. If a thing thinks, it will be finite and want to be.
I do believe that.. to the point that I believe that we're following an emotional program and I'm quite worried that extending your biology without understanding of this side of your psyche will only lead to higher pile of people at the bottom of a bridge.
I'm open to suggestion and discussion but the 20-30 shift in experience may probably be a necessary part of the parenting cycle. And I quite regret the simple and deep joy of kids. Now (as I mentioned often here) I'm not in the best moods but so far no doctor or researcher addressed how to restore this happiness to agreeable levels.
I'm open to suggestion and discussion but the 20-30 shift in experience may probably be a necessary part of the parenting cycle. And I quite regret the simple and deep joy of kids. Now (as I mentioned often here) I'm not in the best moods but so far no doctor or researcher addressed how to restore this happiness to agreeable levels.
To your first point, is it shown that people who live the longest follow this emotional program, in a way that is actually detrimental to their psyche? I am not talking about people experiencing various diseased states such as dementia and other chronic illness.
Restoring in your life the same levels or type of happiness that you see in kids seems unrealistic. Not only that, there tends to be a bias towards nostalgia and how good we had it when we were younger. As I have gotten older, I have only felt a continuous trend towards more happiness in general though. I was a confused, anxious child. I feel better on every level - but that has come with a lot of work on making sure I am eating nutritiously, moving regularly (outside and in the sun), sleeping well, and leaning in towards work that I feel fulfilled doing. It also comes with fostering social relationships and cultivating a good social circle. That's what worked for me.
There is a path for everyone, and there are some generalities we can make on what that looks like, but in the end it is going to be unique to the individual due to their specific circumstances and genetics.
Restoring in your life the same levels or type of happiness that you see in kids seems unrealistic. Not only that, there tends to be a bias towards nostalgia and how good we had it when we were younger. As I have gotten older, I have only felt a continuous trend towards more happiness in general though. I was a confused, anxious child. I feel better on every level - but that has come with a lot of work on making sure I am eating nutritiously, moving regularly (outside and in the sun), sleeping well, and leaning in towards work that I feel fulfilled doing. It also comes with fostering social relationships and cultivating a good social circle. That's what worked for me.
There is a path for everyone, and there are some generalities we can make on what that looks like, but in the end it is going to be unique to the individual due to their specific circumstances and genetics.
Sure, maybe not totally childlike.
But there's a blend of excitement and joy in simple things that I find really lacking in adult life.
I'm also rewiring most my life and habits (somehow centering on simple usual and lively activities) but .. so far not good enough.
To be back to the original point, living longer will exhibit issues, and we'll have to work on that. I just find it sad that it's never mentionned.
But there's a blend of excitement and joy in simple things that I find really lacking in adult life.
I'm also rewiring most my life and habits (somehow centering on simple usual and lively activities) but .. so far not good enough.
To be back to the original point, living longer will exhibit issues, and we'll have to work on that. I just find it sad that it's never mentionned.
Think of it as a process, with no real end in sight. Unlikely you will all of a sudden wake up one day with that blend of excitement and joy you see in children. But it possible to move closer to experiencing that more consistently by rewiring your life and habits like you said. Hope your journey brings what you are looking for.
I think most people realize that living longer will bring a whole host of issues that are hard to put into perspective today. But I also think that for most people, there is a bias against living longer because they think it will be filled of boredom and impaired mental and physical functioning, which I don't think will necessarily be the case.
I think most people realize that living longer will bring a whole host of issues that are hard to put into perspective today. But I also think that for most people, there is a bias against living longer because they think it will be filled of boredom and impaired mental and physical functioning, which I don't think will necessarily be the case.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Human brains are not evolved to handle a million years of noise and notifications. There would be an incalculable amount of damage to a person's personality from all the ups and downs and vagaries of life.
Source?
> If a thing thinks, it will be finite and want to be.
I disagree.
This isn’t a serious comment if you’re presuming to speak on behalf of every “thinking thing”.
Source?
> If a thing thinks, it will be finite and want to be.
I disagree.
This isn’t a serious comment if you’re presuming to speak on behalf of every “thinking thing”.
Memory is seemingly virtual but in reality all memory takes up physical space, so eventually you'll hit limitations.
I don't know about the whole "damage" part but from a logical perspective you have a limited amount of space in your head and therefore limited memory.
If a thing thinks, by induction it will be finite. I don't know if it will "want" to be.
I don't know about the whole "damage" part but from a logical perspective you have a limited amount of space in your head and therefore limited memory.
If a thing thinks, by induction it will be finite. I don't know if it will "want" to be.
I'm skeptical. Old memories do fade quite a bit. Anything unimportant is somehow compressed... distilled to its essence... perhaps the equivalent of garbage collection. There is a window of time, say 25 years, and beyond that point things get pretty hazy. At least, that's how it feels to me. I have childhood memories that are so distant and fragmented, they barely exist anymore.
There's no need to be skeptical. We live in a physical world where all information must be represented by a physical entity.
By induction there will be limits no matter what. You cannot have an infinite amount of memory in your head. You cannot have an infinite amount of anything anywhere.
However abstract something is, the symbolic nature of an abstraction must utilize at least one atom. For example, let's say we have a big number... <the number nine> that we want to abstract. We can choose to have that number be represented by a single symbol "9" rather than nine actual things. This is the true nature of what abstraction is, using smaller symbols to represent bigger things aka compression. But for that symbol to even exist it must be written down or memorized somewhere. This takes up physical space. Even your computer hard drive must use physical magnets flipped to different polarities to represent memory.
The biggest possible abstraction of a real world phenomena in terms of magnitude is to represent the entire universe with a single atom. In the end atoms take up space and even the biggest possible abstraction of the entire universe must take up the space of at least one atom. Your memories are no different... they are just symbols representing aspects of your life experience. Likely your memories take up much more space than a single atom and if your memories take up space and you have a finite amount of space in your skull, then by logic your memory is finite... this categorically true by logic.
Whether the finite memory problem is solved by garbage collection or whether it's not solved at all and people simply go insane is undetermined.
What is known for sure is that your memory is finite.
By induction there will be limits no matter what. You cannot have an infinite amount of memory in your head. You cannot have an infinite amount of anything anywhere.
However abstract something is, the symbolic nature of an abstraction must utilize at least one atom. For example, let's say we have a big number... <the number nine> that we want to abstract. We can choose to have that number be represented by a single symbol "9" rather than nine actual things. This is the true nature of what abstraction is, using smaller symbols to represent bigger things aka compression. But for that symbol to even exist it must be written down or memorized somewhere. This takes up physical space. Even your computer hard drive must use physical magnets flipped to different polarities to represent memory.
The biggest possible abstraction of a real world phenomena in terms of magnitude is to represent the entire universe with a single atom. In the end atoms take up space and even the biggest possible abstraction of the entire universe must take up the space of at least one atom. Your memories are no different... they are just symbols representing aspects of your life experience. Likely your memories take up much more space than a single atom and if your memories take up space and you have a finite amount of space in your skull, then by logic your memory is finite... this categorically true by logic.
Whether the finite memory problem is solved by garbage collection or whether it's not solved at all and people simply go insane is undetermined.
What is known for sure is that your memory is finite.
It's not literally "infinite", you are right. And compression is probably the wrong term. Parts of my early memories are gone: literally gone, no where to be found. It feels like exponential decay the further you go back. Certainly it doesn't decay to nothing, but maybe it's close enough on a very long time scale. I don't know... how do others perceive their distant memories?
Compression is the correct term.
Using symbols to represent bigger concepts is a form of compression. The representation/memory of an animal in your mind is done using symbols rather than an actual animal.
This isn't speculation. A animal exists in reality as construction of millions of biological cells each in turn made up of billions of atoms. Depending on how big the animal is it could be more atoms that make up your brain. Therefore, for the animal to exist in your mind as a memory there Must be a form of information compression. You cannot fully hold an actualization of an animal in your mind because it is too big to exist in your mind. Your brain holds symbols of the animal.
What happens with a jpeg is the exact same concept as what happens in your memory. A jpeg is a symbolic representation of the actual picture. It is a form of lossy compression because details from the original picture are lost.
Using symbols to represent bigger concepts is a form of compression. The representation/memory of an animal in your mind is done using symbols rather than an actual animal.
This isn't speculation. A animal exists in reality as construction of millions of biological cells each in turn made up of billions of atoms. Depending on how big the animal is it could be more atoms that make up your brain. Therefore, for the animal to exist in your mind as a memory there Must be a form of information compression. You cannot fully hold an actualization of an animal in your mind because it is too big to exist in your mind. Your brain holds symbols of the animal.
What happens with a jpeg is the exact same concept as what happens in your memory. A jpeg is a symbolic representation of the actual picture. It is a form of lossy compression because details from the original picture are lost.
In some cases, yes, it is compression. What I was referring to was not, really. It's complete absence of detailed memory.
In all cases memory exists as compression. If the memory is completely absent then we're talking about something that doesn't exist, there's no point.
Or it may not be completely absent, just consciously. Who knows. Nobody knows exactly how our memory works. It's fun to think about though.
Except we have a mathematical theory of information, and memory being information we know that it must exists within the bounds of that theory. Hence, memory is compression.
As I've tried to explain 3 or 4 times, this is not what I'm talking about. Do you understand the difference between data being "deleted" and data being "compressed"? I give up.
[deleted]
Reminded me of this:
"In the strict sense, it is not true that one's character is unchangeable; rather, this popular tenet means only that during a man's short lifetime the motives affecting him cannot normally cut deeply enough to destroy the imprinted writing of many millennia. If a man eighty thousand years old were conceivable, his character would in fact be absolutely variable, so that out of him little by little an abundance of different individuals would develop. The brevity of human life misleads us to many an erroneous assertion about the qualities of man."
- Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human
"In the strict sense, it is not true that one's character is unchangeable; rather, this popular tenet means only that during a man's short lifetime the motives affecting him cannot normally cut deeply enough to destroy the imprinted writing of many millennia. If a man eighty thousand years old were conceivable, his character would in fact be absolutely variable, so that out of him little by little an abundance of different individuals would develop. The brevity of human life misleads us to many an erroneous assertion about the qualities of man."
- Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human
> If a man eighty thousand years old were conceivable, his character would in fact be absolutely variable, so that out of him little by little an abundance of different individuals would develop.
Perhaps it would, perhaps it would not.
For what this strange anecdote is worth, Alzheimer’s had not robbed my mother of her personality even when it was robbing her of object permanence, the concept of things having a left hand side, numbers over four, and speech.
Perhaps it would, perhaps it would not.
For what this strange anecdote is worth, Alzheimer’s had not robbed my mother of her personality even when it was robbing her of object permanence, the concept of things having a left hand side, numbers over four, and speech.
Humans are very adaptable. Society would no doubt look very different, but I also have no doubt that if it were physically possible to live a million years that our psyches would adapt.
>Human brains are not evolved to handle a million years of noise and notifications.
Are you sure? I mean it could be argued we're not evolved to handle 50 years of noise and notifications given that we do not keep all that data but forget quite a bit of it. But then the response is that we handle it by forgetting it - what's the proof that the mechanisms that allow us to handle 50 years by forgetting will cease to work with significantly more data?
Are you sure? I mean it could be argued we're not evolved to handle 50 years of noise and notifications given that we do not keep all that data but forget quite a bit of it. But then the response is that we handle it by forgetting it - what's the proof that the mechanisms that allow us to handle 50 years by forgetting will cease to work with significantly more data?
Right, I think human brain forgets most of the things anyways, so I don't see why it'd not continue forgetting old memories over time!
Well I can make a hypothesis that the human brain will not be able to easily forget centuries worth of memories given the thing that after a certain age people often report having clearer memories of longer ago events than newer ones and that these memories will come back to them periodically, will over time the long term memories be filled up?
my personal feeling would be no, you will keep getting that memory of the person you liked in high school when you're 600 but your probably won't remember anything particularly clearly past 20 years before and the stuff from your 70s-80s will be totally gone.
my personal feeling would be no, you will keep getting that memory of the person you liked in high school when you're 600 but your probably won't remember anything particularly clearly past 20 years before and the stuff from your 70s-80s will be totally gone.
Meh, I don't think you or anyone can seriously make that claim.
I think the mind/human psychology would adjust like we do now. As we progress in life, we are shaped by our experiences, but most of what we experience become distant memories or are completely forgotten. When I look back on my early life, even things that were deeply impactful to me, the memories are almost like they almost happened to another person. IF we lived to be hundred of thousands of years old, I think we would just experience this to a more severe degree.
I think the mind/human psychology would adjust like we do now. As we progress in life, we are shaped by our experiences, but most of what we experience become distant memories or are completely forgotten. When I look back on my early life, even things that were deeply impactful to me, the memories are almost like they almost happened to another person. IF we lived to be hundred of thousands of years old, I think we would just experience this to a more severe degree.
No, not serious. But it's a fun thought experiment. And since it was written by an astronomer, it's no surprise the perspective is more about how we would deal with changes outside ourselves rather than within. Frankly, I wouldn't want to mire the story with too much navel gazing before touching on the elephants in the room: overpopulation, boredom, identity, and the need to develop a near-infinite perspective on being responsible for our actions.
Look at the amount of comments from the cult of death in this thread.
Making so many arguments why they so desperately want to die. Oh how meaningless and boring it would be.
But given they could live 1000's of years not one would choose to end it at 80.
Where does it come from? Deeply rooted pessimism?
I for one couldn't be more happy to live long enough to see us take to the stars. So much happened in last 1000 years who is to say next 1000 will be boring.
Making so many arguments why they so desperately want to die. Oh how meaningless and boring it would be.
But given they could live 1000's of years not one would choose to end it at 80.
Where does it come from? Deeply rooted pessimism?
I for one couldn't be more happy to live long enough to see us take to the stars. So much happened in last 1000 years who is to say next 1000 will be boring.
> What would change if we could live for even just a million years? ... First, tenure in academia would have to be capped. Universities would have to limit faculty appointments to a century at most in order to refresh their talent pool and mitigate old-fashioned education and research dogmas....
> An extended life experience could make us wiser and more risk-averse since there is much more at stake....
> Increasing our fertility period in proportion to our life span will bring the risk of overpopulating Earth. With the current birth rate per person, the number of million-year-old people could increase to the untenable level of a hundred trillion. Moderating that would require a public policy that limits the birth rate to the desired level.
So basically, social ossification and stasis. You'll also have voters who made up their minds on all the political and social issues half-million years ago, and see no reason to change their minds (just like you have people who did the same a half-century ago).
I think any kind of extreme longevity scenario will result either ossification or a re-invention of death under another name (e.g. a memory reset). A finite thing can only go on forever by settling into some kind of repetitive cycle, otherwise it will quickly exhaust its memory.
> An extended life experience could make us wiser and more risk-averse since there is much more at stake....
> Increasing our fertility period in proportion to our life span will bring the risk of overpopulating Earth. With the current birth rate per person, the number of million-year-old people could increase to the untenable level of a hundred trillion. Moderating that would require a public policy that limits the birth rate to the desired level.
So basically, social ossification and stasis. You'll also have voters who made up their minds on all the political and social issues half-million years ago, and see no reason to change their minds (just like you have people who did the same a half-century ago).
I think any kind of extreme longevity scenario will result either ossification or a re-invention of death under another name (e.g. a memory reset). A finite thing can only go on forever by settling into some kind of repetitive cycle, otherwise it will quickly exhaust its memory.
You'd have a 50-50 chance of dying from an accident in 960 years in current US society. My guess is government would get more serious about safety if we live less than percent of our lifespan.
We'd be so cautious we'd never leave our homes in the first place. When there is that much at stake any risk is going to be too much. People will call each other daring for walking across the street or leaving a window open.
Also, the whole world would be owned by the few people that were there since the beginning, with them seeking rent on everybody else. You'd be hip deep in debt to the ruling class from day one. Forget about democracy in a setup like that.
Also, the whole world would be owned by the few people that were there since the beginning, with them seeking rent on everybody else. You'd be hip deep in debt to the ruling class from day one. Forget about democracy in a setup like that.
I see it as more hopeful than that. With a long time to think about things, I think people would cooperate to organize society better. If their lack of organization for 100s of years leads to no improvement in quality of life, eventually they'd do something about it.
Also, with that much time, differences in education would smooth out, and even people who started with a small amount of resources would eventually be able to build up to financial independence, which gives labor more negotiating power.
Also, with that much time, differences in education would smooth out, and even people who started with a small amount of resources would eventually be able to build up to financial independence, which gives labor more negotiating power.
Brain backups are the way to maintain a healthy immortality ;)
Or they’d install better public transit and monitor air pollution more carefully.
If we could live a million years it would allow us to produce a better society by making ultra long investments.
Looking at a century’s candlestick chart for a stock would be something like looking at a weekly chart today.
Looking at a century’s candlestick chart for a stock would be something like looking at a weekly chart today.
I would think society would stagnat.
People in power would have time and a reason to fully solids it.
Japan went through a few centuries were innovative wasn’t allowed. It was seen as a threat to the ruling class.
Japan went through a few centuries were innovative wasn’t allowed. It was seen as a threat to the ruling class.
But was it stable? I don't know Japanese history very well. If it was stable (until upset by the outside) then it'd be a good example.
Japan went through famine and social upheaval in the decades before they were forced to open up. Their economy was fundamentally broken and on the verge of collapse.
so "no". thanks for the followup
I think suicides would go way up. People would get bored with life after a couple hundred years. If everyone lived that long life would stagnate into a boring grayness.
How do you know they would? Greenland sharks live for 300-500 years and they seem to enjoy eating fish well into old age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_shark
They're not sentient at our level. That makes it doable, if you are aware of being bored it is a totally different thing than if you are not.
Thankfully, I'll never get bored of making cheeky comments. ;-)
No need to kill yourself, we would just come up with some way to delete sentience from our minds or something, so we become simpler, happier machines.
Imagine the wealth inequality this would lead to
You'd have Mistborn-esque tyranny with God Kings that last virtually forever (unless assassinated).
Death is the only sure thing.
Even if we could live for billions of years, the Heat Death of the universe will eventually reap us.
So we must understand and embrace Death before we massively extend our lifespan. This is only one of the many things we must do.
Even if we could live for billions of years, the Heat Death of the universe will eventually reap us.
So we must understand and embrace Death before we massively extend our lifespan. This is only one of the many things we must do.
We've only known about quantum mechanics for 100 years. Let's give us another couple hundred years of investigation before we decide there's no way out of the heat death mess.
> Increasing our fertility period in proportion to our life span will bring the risk of overpopulating Earth. With the current birth rate per person, the number of million-year-old people could increase to the untenable level of a hundred trillion. Moderating that would require a public policy that limits the birth rate to the desired level. Alternatively, travel ports could launch people into space to balance the birth rate and maintain a terrestrial population suitable for the available supply of food and energy.
Wait, does it imply that the current population trajectory is sustainable?
Wait, does it imply that the current population trajectory is sustainable?
It absolutely is.
This thought experiment crosses my mind everytime I read the crazy ages of the characters in the book of genesis, the obvious consequence is that space travel and technology would be the dominant science since the earth and this solar system is way too small and boring for creatures who live that long.
[deleted]
Bad ideas die one generation at a time.
I’m all for a limited lifespan.
I’m all for a limited lifespan.
Not only, that death serves as a moment in time when there is some redivision of resources, and as a way of making room for the next generation(s).
A million years * the per-capita-per-annum-consumption and your best contribution to society and the environment would be to jump off a bridge. Nobody would have children for fear of further dividing that meager pie.
Earth's population would skyrocket.
A million years * the per-capita-per-annum-consumption and your best contribution to society and the environment would be to jump off a bridge. Nobody would have children for fear of further dividing that meager pie.
Earth's population would skyrocket.
Let's worry about pushing the average lifespan to 150 before we start talking about the end of civilization. Let's increase our lifespan a little bit and see what happens, rather than theorize about it.
150 isn't 'a little bit'. That's disruptive if there ever was something disruptive. A little bit would be to raise the average lifespan by 5 years. Prediction: all of our pension systems would collapse immediately.
But that's solvable by people working longer if their health lasts longer.
By the time we have "immortality", we'll probably be able to have space elevators, and a fleet of space stations orbiting the sun where people can live. Just make a rule that once you are 120 years old, you have to leave Earth and live in space. Such a rule would allow for the continued progress of Earth culture, and instead of dying, people can go off and live in space. Each group of like-minded people could go a live in their own space station, so there would likely be very little conflict based on differing ideas. (And maybe immortals would be better than we think at changing their minds and adopting new ideas.)
Don't dismiss the idea for a shortage of imagination about the application.
If we had the technology, I imagine we'd also have the technology to forget some percentage of what we knew every year, or at some cadence.
Or perhaps better, forget everything to experience the world fresh, then at some point have previous knowledge restored and available for reintegration.
Perhaps you could merge conscious entities. Or divide them. Install experiences. Delete them.
Maybe an artificial god in the future can perfectly simulate the universe to recreate everyone who has ever lived and died. That would be so weird and amazing, or would really suck if they were malevolent.
If we had the technology, I imagine we'd also have the technology to forget some percentage of what we knew every year, or at some cadence.
Or perhaps better, forget everything to experience the world fresh, then at some point have previous knowledge restored and available for reintegration.
Perhaps you could merge conscious entities. Or divide them. Install experiences. Delete them.
Maybe an artificial god in the future can perfectly simulate the universe to recreate everyone who has ever lived and died. That would be so weird and amazing, or would really suck if they were malevolent.
Mainly because people in power die off. There are many ways to solve this including pushing people out of power after they have been there for some period of time.
Example, 50 year tenure limit for professors after which they can't be professors any more or they're forced out to a different industry. Similar for politicians, etc.
Example, 50 year tenure limit for professors after which they can't be professors any more or they're forced out to a different industry. Similar for politicians, etc.
Yes, it would be interesting to know how much of progress (on racial issues, gay marriage, etc) drives from the new generation replacing the old vs people from the wrong side of history changing their minds.
Maybe something like this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/17776
Imagine trying to get ahead in the company when you're behind a 500 year old middle manager that isn't going to retire for another 999,500 years?
I'd think society would have a lot of trouble moving forward on issues when you don't have the great equalizer of the coffin to kill off old ideas.
I'd think society would have a lot of trouble moving forward on issues when you don't have the great equalizer of the coffin to kill off old ideas.
Just quit. Who cares. You're stuck in this mindset of eternity under management. You're immortal. Do the vanlife for a month, Live on an island, start a business. Chill.
This isn’t just about a work, think of the social implications when you don’t have a generational reset button, people’s minds can change and bad ideas can die out that way but more often than not they die out with the people themselves.
> Just quit. Who cares. You're stuck in this mindset of eternity under management. You're immortal. Do the vanlife for a month, Live on an island, start a business. Chill.
That's assuming that you're going to have the resources to live a life of leisure, just because you're immortal. I think that's likely a false assumption.
That's assuming that you're going to have the resources to live a life of leisure, just because you're immortal. I think that's likely a false assumption.
You're not immortal, you still need to eat and stay warm and get medical care. In fact if anything now the stakes are even higher to achieve a certain sustainable dollar amount so that you can 'retire' (i.e. live sustainably off passive income for a million years).
Stakes are lower. More time to achieve a certain net worth. Once I reach that threshold compounding growth takes over. Two centuries is more than enough to achieve this.
"Universities would have to limit faculty appointments to a century at most in order to refresh their talent pool and mitigate old-fashioned education and research dogmas." - has the author realized that a century to a million years is the same as 3 days to 100 years?
Anything 'lifetime' would have to be re-thought. Warranties. Sentences. Appointments.
Euthanasia would become compulsory, like a draft, so that people who build personal power would have leverage and patronage.
I've wondered what the relationship between long term interest rates and the human lifespan is.
Even if you lived only, say, a thousand years, just putting a little money into some reasonably safe investment would result in enormous wealth over time. Surely if everyone did this, the amount of wealth would tend to drive down rates.
Even if you lived only, say, a thousand years, just putting a little money into some reasonably safe investment would result in enormous wealth over time. Surely if everyone did this, the amount of wealth would tend to drive down rates.
Imagine what the world would look like if our natural life span were a million years, but people could still be killed by accidents or homicide at the same rate as today. Our attitude towards risk would almost certainly change.
sense of time would be very different if you was even a thousand year old. One day would feel like five minutes.
I recommend people watch Ad Vitam (it's on Netflix). It shows a society where ageless/disease-free immortality has been achieved.
I recommend watching "The man from earth". It's a film literally discussing this same idea.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/
I suspect that limits of human psychology will probably result in a society like this, if we were to ever stretch our lifespans into millions of years.