What do you think would happen if everyone stopped dying?

[Ponder This]

OK, so we get old and our health deteriorates. Death due to old age.

Technically, no. Technically death is always because of something that we associate with old age but not because of old age itself. That's why when the OP allows death to occur by various means besides 'old age', he hasn't actually stopped any of the reasons that people actually die.

What really happens is senescence (the condition or process of deterioration with age. So I'm suggesting the OP is really referring to a cessation of senescence.
Some organisms have negligible senescence (like crocodiles and elephants). Despite the fact that sea urchins, lobsters, clams, hydras, tortoises, turtles, crocodiles, alligators, rough eye rock fish, and flounders have not been observed to age biologically, none of these creatures is in danger of over-populating the planet. That's because they can still die of diseases, accidents, predators, etc. (in other words, the same things that kill humans also kill these creatures that do not appear to biologically age).

What this means should be clear: an end to senescence will not be sufficient to stop people from dying!
There's a lot more work to do: obesity, starvation, diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, plagues, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc., etc. IMO

So it's not a bad question... it's just poorly phrased (and, IMO, generally poorly answered too).

 

[Deeje]

The Bible does say that God denied man the fruit of the tree of eternal life.

Genesis 2:9
The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."Genesis 2:22-24
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.
After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
So it seems that the Bible suggests that God had a reason for denying eternal life and it has to do with the acquisition of knowledge of good and evil. If people seem skeptical that any good can come of people living forever, then perhaps it is the potential for unending evil that they are considering.

Yes, the thought of living in the world, the way it is at present, is not a pleasant prospect. But if all the evil elements were done away with......imagine what we could accomplish by only having good in the world...and not any evil. That was God's first purpose.....if the humans had simply trusted him and obeyed him in one small command.....none of us would ever have known what an evil thing was, because no one would have ever thought of it. Relying on God to guide their lives would have saved us all a lot of grief....but once the genie was out of the bottle, the only way to settle the issues was to allow humans to experience the full gamut of evil for themselves.
I don't know too many people who love evil.....though some appear to relish it. And when we feed our minds a steady diet of violence and bloodshed in our entertainment, we become somewhat immune to it when it becomes reality.

An example of this is jet pilots trained in simulators to kill the enemy. The simulations become so ingrained that when real people are killed in real bombing raids, it does not even register as any different...they see it on a screen.

Within one generation, a murderer was produced because Cain was jealous of his brother and evil thoughts turned to evil actions....and they have continued to this day.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

And yet we see those things decrease as societies are becoming increasingly secularized.

I don't see moral standards increasing but decreasing.
Even when foods have been sent to help with famine or food shortages it ends up in un-even food distribution.
Often those sent foods have ended up on the black market instead of its intended purpose.
Never before has mankind seen the nuclear threat or terror violence as today.
Seems to me world leaders have said there will be an ' end ' by disease, famine, terrorism, etc.
Whereas I find Scripture teaches that Jesus will come to righteous mankind's rescue before man ruins earth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Never before has mankind seen the nuclear threat or terror violence as today.

Most of those alive today have never been, at any other point in history, so unlikely to be killed from violence or an act of war.

Seems to me world leaders have said there will be an ' end ' by disease, famine, terrorism, etc.

Who, exactly, has said this?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Most of those alive today have never been, at any other point in history, so unlikely to be killed from violence or an act of war.
Who, exactly, has said this?

Unlikely right now, but if left unchecked violence, etc. would keep on growing.
Most alive today have locks on their windows, doors, cars, etc. which was Not always the case in the past.
I did Not have exact persons in mind, but that in general world leaders see a growing ' end ' in a violent world.
Mankind is putting their faith in science and technology to solve mankind's problems.
Technology has proven to be a two-edged sword: atomic energy / atomic bomb.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Unlikely right now, but if left unchecked violence, etc. would keep on growing.

Violence and crime, though reported far more frequently in the news, are on a general downward trend.

I did Not have exact persons in mind, but that in general world leaders see a growing ' end ' in a violent world.

I've not heard any harping on about a global end to violence, disease, or famine.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

For example, cancer is an ailment 'associated with old age'.

death from ailments associated with old age aren't exclusive to old age. 'Death due to old age' is more like 'death due to deteriorating health'.

Another ailment associated with old age includes osteoporosis. But old age isn't what kills a person and even osteoporosis doesn't 'kill' people. But, of course, a person with weak bones is more prone to break them after a fall.

So it should be clear that there is a problem in discussing 'death from old age' in that it really needs to be defined well to hold a proper discussion about it. The OP says what if we didn't have death from old age, but people could still die from accidents and things. Well... that doesn't make sense. The ways in which people die are from accidents and things. People don't ever technically 'die' from old age itself. So what about cancer? Is the OP saying people don't die from cancer? What about heart attacks? What about strokes? What about losing your grip on a railing and falling to your death?

If there really is a death from old age, then we don't really understand it yet. There are some theories, but that's about it.

So I suppose that if people no longer 'died from old age' (assuming we can really define that properly), then we would be living in an incredible age where people maintained robust health indefinitely. So, people wouldn't ever need to retire from their jobs! What people would become might be truly incredible. It would be possible to have a benevolent dictatorship that lasted indefinitely. People could build space ships and make the million year treks across outer space to explore other galaxies. The possibilities within each person would have literally unending potential. For example, a person could literally devote himself to calculating the digits of pi for thousands of years if he wanted. The sorts of things that would become possible with immortality are mind boggling.

But when people make posts about overpopulation , I just wonder if they really stopped to think it out. Because old age isn't the only limiting factor on overpopulation. If we reached a point where there wasn't enough food to feed everybody, then the population can't continue to grow without bound. It just wouldn't be possible. Someone would have to starve to death. There are always going to be ways for people to die.

@Deeje , I thought you might enjoy this, too:

Are Telomeres the Key to Aging and Cancer

 

[WalterTrull]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! (running in circles, waving hands about wildly - well walking in circles)
"I love him. If only he were different"
The apparent problem with numbers of people will always be solved - one apparent way or another. Wouldn't it be cool if it were solved, at least in part, by an expansion of the earth.

 

[tayla]

if you woke up tomorrow and everyone on the entire planet was immune to death(only from age, people can still die from murderer, accidents, suicide, etc), what do you think would happen and what are your thoughts on it as a religious person?

It would mean the laws nature changed. If there were still reproduction, there would be questions about the earth filling-up with the over-abundance of life. Clearly people would die en masse from starvation as they depleted the available resources.

And why restrict the question by allowing accidents etc? Why not envision an eternal utopian paradise such as the new heavens and new earth of Christianity?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

It would mean the laws nature changed. If there were still reproduction, there would be questions about the earth filling-up with the over-abundance of life. Clearly people would die en masse from starvation as they depleted the available resources.

And why restrict the question by allowing accidents etc? Why not envision an eternal utopian paradise such as the new heavens and new earth of Christianity?

But we just said they couldn't die.In actual fact, trees wouldn't be able to die either. Meaning, you would have a problem of starving people but not death from starvation. They'd have gnawing hunger, assuming a constant state of plant and fish population. Of course, that isn't the case. No death, also means no plant or animal death unless eaten or destroyed. Very quickly, we would find ourselves constantly struggling with tree overgrowth, and if even 5% were fruit plants, yeah we're not likely to starve. Then there's fish. If fish are overpopulating, we have to eat a ton of fish to keep them from overfeeding on sea plants or plankton. Not likely to starve.

A real population study found that far from the alarmist stance, the entirety of the Earth could fit within Texas, including a dog and a house, leaving the rest of the Earth untouched. The actual problem is gross mismanagement of resources.

Even assuming "no longer dies" means "no longer dies from old age or disease" plenty of people would die in war. People in developing countries or those with crappy infrastructure would die of famine. Some would die of murder or accident. Or suicide.

In actual fact, if we cut out old age or disease, our numbers would only marginally increase as there would still be people who kill each other, people who suck at keeping jobs, and people who just die in disasters or whatever. In an economy that didn't coddle the poor, this would take care of itself.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It would mean the laws nature changed. If there were still reproduction, there would be questions about the earth filling-up with the over-abundance of life. Clearly people would die en masse from starvation as they depleted the available resources.
And why restrict the question by allowing accidents etc? Why not envision an eternal utopian paradise such as the new heavens and new earth of Christianity?

I find that God's purpose was to have Earth populated and Not over-populated as per Genesis 1:28.
In other words, mankind was to reproduce until Earth was filled and Not over filled with people.
Since Revelation 22:2 talks about 'healing' for earth's nations, then there will be No death's from accidents.
Also, Earth was promised only for humble meek people to inherit the Earth.
That means wicked people will be ' destroyed forever ' as per Psalms 92:7
So, by the end of Jesus' coming 1,000-year rule over Earth then Earth will be populated (Not over populated) with upright people so that there will Not be any over crowding, etc.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But we just said they couldn't die.In actual fact, trees wouldn't be able to die either. Meaning, you would have a problem of starving people but not death from starvation. They'd have gnawing hunger, assuming a constant state of plant and fish population. Of course, that isn't the case. No death, also means no plant or animal death unless eaten or destroyed. Very quickly, we would find ourselves constantly struggling with tree overgrowth, and if even 5% were fruit plants, yeah we're not likely to starve. Then there's fish. If fish are overpopulating, we have to eat a ton of fish to keep them from overfeeding on sea plants or plankton. Not likely to starve.
A real population study found that far from the alarmist stance, the entirety of the Earth could fit within Texas, including a dog and a house, leaving the rest of the Earth untouched. The actual problem is gross mismanagement of resources.
Even assuming "no longer dies" means "no longer dies from old age or disease" plenty of people would die in war. People in developing countries or those with crappy infrastructure would die of famine. Some would die of murder or accident. Or suicide.
In actual fact, if we cut out old age or disease, our numbers would only marginally increase as there would still be people who kill each other, people who suck at keeping jobs, and people who just die in disasters or whatever. In an economy that didn't coddle the poor, this would take care of itself.

In Scripture I find everlasting life on Earth was only offered to: humankind.
In other words, Adam could have lived forever on Earth if he did Not break God's Law.
The coming 1,000-year governmental rule over Earth by Christ Jesus is to undo the damage Adam caused.
So, righteous mankind is being offered everlasting life on Earth starting with Jesus' millennial reign over Earth.
Isaiah 35 describes what conditions will be like on Earth under Jesus' rule.
Animal kind will be at peace with human kind, but animal kind will never be offered everlasting life.

God purposed reproduction to stop when Earth became populated (Not over populated) as per Genesis 1:28.
Since only humble meek people will inherit the Earth then there will be No killing No wars.
As Psalms 46:9 informs us that God will cause wars to cease everywhere.
The executional words from Jesus' mouth will do away with wicked people - Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16.
So, there will be No danger from any humans, and No danger from animal kind.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Violence and crime, though reported far more frequently in the news, are on a general downward trend.
I've not heard any harping on about a global end to violence, disease, or famine.

I have Not found moral or ethical behavior to be on an ^up^ward trend.
If a person is Not faithful in small matters, given the opportunity then there is No reason to think they would be faithful in large matters.

Not sure what you mean by 'Not heard any harping about a global end to violence, disease, or famine'.
I have read about a global end to wars everywhere according to Psalms 46:9
I have read about a global end to disease at Revelation 22:2; Isaiah 33:24
I have read about a global end to famine at Psalms 72:8; Psalms 72:12-16
I have read about a global paradisical Earth in Isaiah 35 th chapter.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have Not found moral or ethical behavior to be on an ^up^ward trend.

Of course you will see it that way, as your belief system imposes its beliefs of moral and ethical behaviors into others, judging people by the actions of their own private lives and leave no victims. When the focus or morality and ethics shifts focus onto the harm actions do to others, yes we are behaving much better. Crime and violence have been going down.

Not sure what you mean by 'Not heard any harping about a global end to violence, disease, or famine'.

The Bible is not a current world leader. You said politicians are talking about it, and you name none but instead quote the Bible? Surely you can do better?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Of course you will see it that way, as your belief system imposes its beliefs of moral and ethical behaviors into others, judging people by the actions of their own private lives. When the focus or morality and ethics shifts focus onto the harm actions do to others, yes we are behaving much better. Crime and violence have been going down.
The Bible is not a current world leader. You said politicians are talking about it, and you name none but instead quote the Bible? Surely you can do better?

Right, the Bible is Not a current ( or ever was ) a world leader, but the Bible leads us to what is will be.
I don't know what politicians are talking about it, but they recognize how things can end badly.
Whereas Scriptures teaches a happy end starting with Jesus' coming 1,000-year rule over Earth.
Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

In Matthew chapter 7 Jesus taught Not to be judging others on a personal level.
In other words, Not to impute wrong or bad motives to others.
However, by one's fruits ( behavior ) a person would be recognized.
If everyone on Earth lived by the Golden Rule what kind of world would there be.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

The question reminds me of this classic video:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know what politicians are talking about it,

So, then you lied when you said you heard them talking about it.

 

[tayla]

I find that God's purpose was to have Earth populated and Not over-populated as per Genesis 1:28.
In other words, mankind was to reproduce until Earth was filled and Not over filled with people.
Since Revelation 22:2 talks about 'healing' for earth's nations, then there will be No death's from accidents.
Also, Earth was promised only for humble meek people to inherit the Earth.
That means wicked people will be ' destroyed forever ' as per Psalms 92:7
So, by the end of Jesus' coming 1,000-year rule over Earth then Earth will be populated (Not over populated) with upright people so that there will Not be any over crowding, etc.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Seems to me we already are grossly overpopulated, with severe degradation of the environment and hardship or extinction of other species caused by this. We certainly are not very good stewards. Perhaps God isn't happy about this.

I believe in a yet-future eternal utopia in God's presence, the new heavens and new earth of Christianity. With no pain, suffering, death, sin, or evil.

But I think all passages in the Bible used to support a yet-future 1,000 millennium actually refer to this new heavens and new earth.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Seems to me we already are grossly overpopulated, with severe degradation of the environment and hardship or extinction of other species caused by this. We certainly are not very good stewards. Perhaps God isn't happy about this.
I believe in a yet-future eternal utopia in God's presence, the new heavens and new earth of Christianity. With no pain, suffering, death, sin, or evil.
But I think all passages in the Bible used to support a yet-future 1,000 millennium actually refer to this new heavens and new earth.

I think you have in mind 2 Peter 3:13.
If we look back up to 2 Peter 3:5 we see mentioned the OLD heavens and earth of Noah's day.
The corrupted ruling heavens and earth were filled with violence - Genesis 6:11
Then, at 2 Peter 3:7 we have the corrupted heavens and earth of NOW meaning since Noah's day to our day.
The righteous NEW heavens and earth comes into play at the start of the coming ' time of separation ' of Matthew 25:31-33,37,40. The righteous humble ' sheep'-like people can remain alive on earth, and continue to live on earth right into calendar Day One when Jesus begins his coming 1,000-year governmental rule over Earth.
So, soon we will have a cleansed heavens ( the kingdom government of Daniel 2:44 under Christ ) and a cleansed earth free from wickedness - Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16; Psalms 37:9-11.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The question reminds me of this classic video:

Remember: God's command that Adam and Eve were only to reproduce only unitl Earth was full ( populated ).
They and their descendants (us) were to populate the Earth, and Not overpopulate Earth - Genesis 1:28
So, there will be No overcrowding, No food shortage, No un-even food distribution, etc.
Mankind will see the fullfillment of Isaiah 65:21-22 because the executional words from Jesus' mouth will rid the Earth of the wicked as per Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16; Psalms 37:9-11.