The Bioethical Implications of Human Immortality (moral, Earth, paradise, elder)

[Runt]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I think you'e been watching too many Japanese horror flicks Kungfuzed. Either that or you are a suppressed entomologist...

--mothra

Or hentai *nodnod*

[angellous_evangellous]

If humans were immortal, there would be no need for bioethics.

[Runt]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

If humans were immortal, there would be no need for bioethics.

On the contrary, this theoretical population is not free of the possibility of injury, incapable of war and murder, or immune to disease. They simply do not die of old age. Many of the ethical and bioethical questions we have today (such as questions of right to life, assisted suicide, artificial reproduction, and resource allocations) remain a concern for this theoretical population... possibly to a greater degree than they are a concern for us today.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Runt

On the contrary, this theoretical population is not free of the possibility of injury, incapable of war and murder, or immune to disease. They simply do not die of old age. Many of the ethical and bioethical questions we have today (such as questions of right to life, assisted suicide, artificial reproduction, and resource allocations) remain a concern for this theoretical population... possibly to a greater degree than they are a concern for us today.

Then it makes no sense.

[rojse]

But the life of a person does not merely end through old age. Some people die in car accidents, or be murdered, or so forth. You might live forever biologically, and even be immune from disease, however improbable that may be, but you would still die if you were hit by a car travelling one hundred kilometres per hour.

If we were to really be incapable of death, as you suggest, then we could live whereever we wished, without worrying about inconsequential things like radiation, temperature, pressure, or deadly chemicals. With that reasoning, I could go to sleep on Mars without having to worry about the fact that it is approximately minus one hundred and fifty degrees, or that there was no oxygen, or that I had no water or food.

[Runt]

Originally Posted by rojse

But the life of a person does not merely end through old age. Some people die in car accidents, or be murdered, or so forth. You might live forever biologically, and even be immune from disease, however improbable that may be, but you would still die if you were hit by a car travelling one hundred kilometres per hour.

If we were to really be incapable of death, as you suggest, then we could live whereever we wished, without worrying about inconsequential things like radiation, temperature, pressure, or deadly chemicals. With that reasoning, I could go to sleep on Mars without having to worry about the fact that it is approximately minus one hundred and fifty degrees, or that there was no oxygen, or that I had no water or food.

This is intended to be an inquiry into a bioethical concern that is actually possible within the foreseeable future, and which should, therefore, be examined before it becomes a reality. There has been a lot of research done in recent years on the aging process and the ways in which it might be halted or reversed. Researchers have now identified 7 causes of aging, and are contemplating ways to address these causes. Based on our current understandings of aging, science may be able to halt the aging process well disease and crime are eradicated or medicine has advanced to the point of being able to treat every fatal injury. Thus, what this essay speaks of is a sort of "conditional immortality"---it is not a supernatural immortality in which the human being becomes outright invincible, but merely an elimination of only ONE of the factors which threaten the human life. The human being is essentially immortal, because until some outside misfortune---illness or injury---ends his life, he will not die.

[rojse]

I must have misunderstood your post. My apologies.

I know about all of what you have said, but I do not think that we will achieve the immortality that you envision, because of our current lifestyle, but also because of biological factors.

There is the economic factor to consider in this, which has been mentioned previously. Not everyone could afford expensive medical treatments that would allow an indefinite lifespan, and I am certain that the companies that can create such treatments would have huge profit margins, and leave the treatments out of the grasp of most people. Many people struggle to afford even basic medical treatment today, so I doubt that many people would be able to afford the treatments when they come now.

People will still die. They might get lost on a mountain for a month, and be found dead. They might be in a serious car accident, and die on impact, or the process of cutting them out of the car takes too long. They might drown. Or there could be a fatal workplace accident, where someone breaks their neck. Just because medical services get better, it does not mean that people will not die at all. It just means that accidents will have to be more serious.

For the people out there intent on murder, they will just have to not have their corpse discovered for some time, whether it is ten minutes, ten hours or ten days.

Disease is an important factor that you have mentioned, and I am sure that this will lower the average life expectancy of the potential immortals.

This immortality process would also have to take into account the slow degradation of our body organs, such as the heart, the lungs, and many of our other organs that are vital for life. Perhaps biological engineering can solve some of these problems to some extent, but they will not last forever. And where would these new organs come from?

These points do not even consider any social attitudes or governmental laws on the subject that may arise to avoid overpopulation problems that you envision.

[rojse]

With a longer life span, I think that we could complete projects that would not be envisionable to us now, with our short life span and the resultant lack of vision. These projects would lower population pressures.

We could terraform planets, for example. Or we could send out spaceships to explore different solar systems. A timeframe of one thousand years for each of these would not be a problem, because we would live to see the conclusion, and benefit from our work.

Both of these would also alleviate population pressure on earth.