Should humanity overcome death?
Death has dominated the human psyche, religion, philosophy, and culture since before the dawn of recorded history.
But should Humanity overcome death?
Or is it best to accept things as they are, and learn to live with the fact that death comes for all?
You know, just the other day I was wondering if that is actually possible in a practical sense.
After all, the brain didn't evolve to live for "millions of years".
Physically, I think it theoretically can be done to mess with genetics / cell workings and stuff to get to some kind of "eternal youth", albeit with a regular treatment or something.
But I wonder about the brain. How will it respond to storing thousands of years worth of memories?
Would it "overload"? Could it become "full", like a diskdrive, out of memory?
It's strange to think about. But it wouldn't surprise me that after x amount of centuries, brain problems could arise.
Anyway, suppose we invent that today. The OP seems to imply that it would be available to everyone eventually and not just a select few elites who become "immortal"?
If it's for all humans, then our social structure, civilization as we know it, would fundamentally change and perhaps even collapse.
Monogamy and "till death" would fly out the window. Having babies would be a big no-no (as the old generation doesn't die anymore, earth would be quickly over-over-crowded). Our entire economic systems, based on 2 decades of education, 4-5 decades of work and then retirement would also collapse. The entire concept is fully geared towards "
working and saving up for your kids and end-of-life retirement".
All that would also go out the window.
Ironically (with certain theistic arguments in mind), "eternal life" would strip most aspects of life from its meaning. Many things would no longer be worth doing.
So
actually overcoming death? No, bad idea.
Extending life a bit more artifically? Sure, but for me: only on condition that it happens through slowing down aging. I'm not looking forward to becoming 140 if physical decay stays on the same rate as it naturally is.
We could manage slowing down aging. So that today's 65 is the physical equivalent of say being 100-110.
In that case, we can just stretch out everything we do know, but over longer periods of time.
We won't get kids at 25-30, but at 40-50.
We won't retire at 65 but at 110.
We won't have a 2 decade education, but a 3 decade one.
Civilization could overcome such.
But in fact STOPPING aging all together instead of just slowing it down? No.
Bad idea.