Who wants to live forever?

slowbike

saw this in the news feed this morning
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... ate-signs/

I take it this guy has been laying there - unresponsive - for 15 years ... wow ...

led me to think about medical progress and "preserving" life....

The ultimate goal would be to control life & death... but to get there we'll need to go through some major leaps.

<huge leap>
Consider a leap where they can replicate your mind within a computer - so all your concious and memory - along with some real life interfaces - held in a computer.... that would mean that you can "live forever" - as we can rebuild & renew computers - all we need is a power source.
Would you do it? Would you want to live forever?

It kinda depends - I'd love to see my family grow and celebrate their successes and be there when they need a hand... but would being a computer program - or even a robot be enough? Perhaps it's too much - once you've got to your time it's time to let go and let your family stand on their own feet.

veronese68

Good lord no.

slowbike

Veronese68 wrote:

Good lord no.

Are you not even remotely interested to know what this world is like in 100 years time - or 200 ... ?

veronese68

Mildly curious, but not enough to sit around smelling of wee with a completely worn out body that won't do what it's told. That's assuming I don't get dementia.
Ideally I'd live to have a healthy old age and then pass away after an illness that's just long enough for my family to get used to the idea that the end is nigh. No more than 2 weeks. Not too sudden but nothing long and drawn out either.
When I was having chemo there were people of all ages getting treatment. Those in their late 60s and beyond were very pragmatic and accepting of what will be will be. They were far more concerned that the younger patients should get better and make the most out of life.

surrey_commuter

But say you were on a large pension? your loving memories may decide to keep you alive for decades so they could keep cashing the cheques

rolf_f

Slowbike wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Good lord no.

Are you not even remotely interested to know what this world is like in 100 years time - or 200 ... ?

What a depressing thought. Ultimately I suppose your idea would be like being a quadriplegic forever - for the most part passively watching whilst life lived and died around you. Only it wouldn't die - everyone would end up on the same computer as you probably complaining about how things weren't what they used to be (correctly for once). Probably what Christians would call heaven.

slowbike

Veronese68 wrote:

Mildly curious, but not enough to sit around smelling of wee with a completely worn out body that won't do what it's told. That's assuming I don't get dementia.
Ideally I'd live to have a healthy old age and then pass away after an illness that's just long enough for my family to get used to the idea that the end is nigh. No more than 2 weeks. Not too sudden but nothing long and drawn out either.
When I was having chemo there were people of all ages getting treatment. Those in their late 60s and beyond were very pragmatic and accepting of what will be will be. They were far more concerned that the younger patients should get better and make the most out of life.

I appreciate the not wanting to sit there and smell of wee ... noway would I want to be a burden to my family - I have no intention of doing that.
However, considering we could have a number of decades left, there's the thought that scientists could preserve your mind if not your body ... but would that be something we'd even desire ... ?

slowbike

Surrey Commuter wrote:

But say you were on a large pension? your loving memories may decide to keep you alive for decades so they could keep cashing the cheques

Meh - the pension rules would have to be re-written - you'd not exactly be "alive" ... just running ... unless you're hosted on an MS server ... then you''d be constantly rebooted ... then - what if you get hacked?

slowbike

Rolf F wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Good lord no.

Are you not even remotely interested to know what this world is like in 100 years time - or 200 ... ?

What a depressing thought. Ultimately I suppose your idea would be like being a quadriplegic forever - for the most part passively watching whilst life lived and died around you. Only it wouldn't die - everyone would end up on the same computer as you probably complaining about how things weren't what they used to be (correctly for once). Probably what Christians would call heaven.

yup - well - for as long as you desired and could afford the computer time anyway... perhaps you'd program yourself to be booted up once a month for a day or two ...
We effectively watch whilst those around us live and die - we can't control everything - and in these days of internet - most of our communications seem to be digital - no reason that couldn't be as a computer program. So you'd be interacting - just not a physcial being. With VR progressing quickly we could even have "holidays" - remember Total Recall ... the Matrix ... ? Wouldn't it make life so much simpler if we didn't have to be a physical being ... no more sitting in traffic jams, listening to the neighbours dogs bark etc etc ...

Yes - I did draw the same thoughts as you - what Christians could describe as Heaven - the promissed everlasting life - but why do we want that? Then - if you want to take it down to the theological - everything Christian is based on being judged and passing on to eternal heaven or hell ... well - if we don't want our own version - then just what is God offering? But I was hoping not to turn this into a religious discussion ...

veronese68

Slowbike wrote:

..there's the thought that scientists could preserve your mind if not your body ... but would that be something we'd even desire ... ?

An active mind incapable of doing anything? Therein lies madness. I was thinking that if the guy that's been in a vegetative state for 15 years was still fully functional up top after the accident he'd have gone mad many years ago being stuck inside his own head.
Besides, have you seen the level of sh!t I post on here? I really don't think this mind should be preserved. I won't pass judgement on any others, but you can guess.

Pross

I've said it before but I think we spend far too much money on prolonging life, seemingly just because we can, and then worrying that we can't afford to care for our ageing population. Saving a life that can then go on without medical intervention for a long time is one thing or prolonging the life of someone who has a terminal illness when they can have a few extra months of reasonable quality life with their loved ones is one thing but keeping someone alive just so they can lie inert in a hospital bed seems a pointless and potentially cruel exercise. As for wanting to live for ever, no thanks even if I keep reasonably healthy both mentally and physically I don't want to see everyone else I know and love die around me.

burnthesheep

There are two mainstream movies about this:
-Tron
-Chappie

And:
“Man. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.”

ricky_h-2

Only had one grandparent alive during my lifetime who lived a full life and died at the age of 96. Only complaint he had was so many of his contemporaries had long gone before him and it was a bit isolating. He died within 18 months of giving up cycling after his knee gave up on him. Maybe there's a lesson or two for us all in that.

singleton

I'll be living forever, but not on this earth.

keef66

Not me. At 60 I don't have the marbles or the cartilage / muscle mass I used to, and I'm sure it's all downhill from here. I've seen the kids grow up and make their ways in the world, find partners, settle down. Helped them buy their first houses, and maybe a grandchild or two will appear at some point. And then, if mind and body are starting to fail seriously, I'd like the option of choosing when to end it all. I don't want to spend my hard-earned life savings on incontinence pads, painkillers and carers who don't. I'd rather leave it to the next generation to do something useful with, and I'm sure they'd rather remember me as a lucid, functioning individual, rather than a dribbling, senile bed-bound stranger.

veronese68

Pross wrote:

Saving a life that can then go on without medical intervention for a long time is one thing or prolonging the life of someone who has a terminal illness when they can have a few extra months of reasonable quality life with their loved ones is one thing but keeping someone alive just so they can lie inert in a hospital bed seems a pointless and potentially cruel exercise.

Totally agree. Why is it humane to put an animal out of its misery, but we prolong people's suffering. Makes no sense at all.

rolf_f

I feel sorry for those who obssess about everlasting life - whether by machinery or by god. Ultimately, I am pretty sure that the happiest folk are those who are just comfortable with their own time of life and can concentrate on enjoying that.

crispybug2

I'm planning to live forever........... So far so good!!

Garry H

Connor McLeod?

slowmart

To live life without taste, feel, smell, sight, emotion. The point is?

slowbike

keef66 wrote:

.... and I'm sure they'd rather remember me as a lucid, functioning individual, rather than a dribbling, senile bed-bound stranger.

Do you think you have left it a bit late?!

slowbike

Slowmart wrote:

To live life without taste, feel, smell, sight, emotion. The point is?

Well - sensory input is just a matter of the right electrical signals - that’s all our brains are doing. Who knows if you perceive the same smell as anyone else or if your colour red is the same as mine.
So if you can program input that emulates that and allows a human conscious to exist in a virtual environment then you could easily say that there’s not plenty to keep the mind occupied.

The question then is - would you want to?

Which ultimately comes down to the question. The answer, we know is 42 - but what is the question?

I suppose our primitive goal was to reproduce, but existing forever - and being able to influence/control our environment does away with that need. We then have no purpose.

awavey

Garry H wrote:

Connor McLeod?

Heather