what happens if you live for 1000 years, but we still have the same amount of "productive" years as we do now? most people have done all the producing they are going to do before they turn 80, so what do they do for the rest of their 1000 year lifespan? 920 years of Alzheimers and frail, brittle bones doesn't exactly sound appealing to me.

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

That's due to them becoming physically very weak (which eventually leads to their death) and wanting to spend some time doing things they enjoy towards the end of their life.

If some means were found of keeping people healthy indefinitely, then they would probably only take finite sabbaticals every now and then, rather than retiring from productive life entirely. They'd have to - otherwise they'd run out of money.

__________________
http://amssolarempire.blogspot.com

I can assure you this will not occur. Since "frailties of old age" is what makes you die of old age, any significant extension of human lifespan will by necessity include amelioration of these frailties -- indeed will BE "ameliorations". To some extent this is happening already -- not only are people living longer, they stay healthy longer -- "60 is the new 50", or some such.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

I advise you to look at historical records of everyone who tries to... reexamine human rights for the purpose of "greater good". In short, if you tried to put your proposal into practice, I'd be the first on a roof with a sniper rifle.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

novaderik: Do you know why the retirement age is 65? Because in the late 19th century, Bismark needed to pick an age where people were no longer able to physically work for old age pensions to begin. Life expectancy and quality have greatly increased since then, but we haven't changed the number. That will change.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Probably also because most people didn't get there in the first place,
so that made it a lot cheaper than it is today...

I think the great variety of possibilities discussed show that the way, or ways, in which immortality is achieved will to a large extent determine what changes occur. There is a big difference between "take a pill every day and you won't age", "record your personality and re-embody every so often" and "live as a software entity in a virtual environment". The last two are a form of immortality, but include much more.

Also, there would not only be immortals but a society of immortals. Such a society would define new expectations, values, roles, etc. for its members.

Lots of SF on this, both positive and negative.

Poul Anderson wrote a novel in which a one-time process kept everyone permanently at their prime age. Every century or so people had to edit their memories to avoid insanity. This editing was selective. People decided what memories to delete and what to keep. It was understood that sooner or later something would kill you, at least if you wanted a life worth living.

Concepts like uploading to virtual realities or to another body include immortality almost as a by-product. It's not the most important result.

__________________
It's not what we don't know that harms us;
it's what we do know that ain't so.

Nor is it immortality. It's a copy of me. I still die, though the copy lives on.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

That's not really different from what happens now. You are an imperfect copy of the person you were a year ago. The important difference being that at no point do you actually double up.

The difference is that there is no continuity of consciousness.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

I don't see a lack of continuity of consciousness as a problem. To me consciousness means being awake and aware of your surroundings. Since most people sleep, continuity of consciousness would rarely last more than a day. Personally I am easily distracted and daydream a lot, so my continuity of consciousness lasts a lot less than a day. Then there's the fact that consciousness is not a proper noun. It is just a product of activity in our brains, so an electronic copy of a biological brain could believe there was no interruption in consciousness and as far as that electronic copy would be concerned there would have been no interuption of consciousness.

I'll mention that I already have a copy of me walking around. It's not such a big deal.

Ever been sedated? It can be an odd feeling when you come around. I've had the distinct impression that it was like viewing a computer reboot from the inside.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Fine. Bad choice of words. But let me put it this way. You have your brain entirely replaced every, what, seven years? It's gradual. Do you ever cease to be? No, a neuron changes and is integrated. Continuity.

But say you have your brain scanned and uploaded into a computer. What do you feel? Maybe a tingle from the scan or somesuch. Then what? Do you wake up in the computer? Nope. You stay in your head, and a copy wakes up in the computer. I have no problem with having a copy, but it is not a route to immortality for me. Just for the copy.

I'm sure you see what I'm saying.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

But the situation would have changed, with immortality, people can hold onto power for a LONG time, forever in fact. That is the stagnation, none of the turnover that helps keeps the world greased and turning. One of the reasons democracy works is that the leader can only be leader so long, leading to a fresh turnover of ideas. Besides, we don't have immortality, so my putting those ideas into practice is as yet moot. You can put away your gun.

__________________

There are, I'm sure, some atoms that last even longer than seven years. On the other hand, most of the molecules involved in making your brain "go" change far more often than that.


Hans Moravec suggested this possibility: Imagine that you were in the operating room, with sophisticated scanning hardware, a "computer" and interfacing hardware. As you sit there, part of your brain is scanned, the processes are duplicated in a computer, and an interface is placed between the scanned portion of your brain and surrounding neurons.

You're given a switch that toggles function between the scanned portion of your brain, and the upload in the computer. Push the button once, and you're using your biological brain. Another push, and it is the upload. Repeat as often as you like. Once you are satisfied that there is no difference, you have that portion of the brain removed permanently. You repeat this process (brain scan, upload/interface, toggle the button, have a bit of brain removed) until you're fully uploaded into the computer. "You" never became unconscious during the process, and so there is continuity.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

That seems much more palatable to me. It's a hard philosophical thing to wrap your head around. Though, speaking personally, if there were a choice between this option and one that allowed me to retain a corporeal existence (assuming in both the changes were gradual and continuity of "me" existed), I'd choose the latter. Sure, I could otherwise immerse myself in simulations, but I want to exist in the real world. Virtual reality holds no appeal for me.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

You could sign a form saying you don't want to know which is the original and which is the copy. You go into a medical facility, lie down in a scanner and have your brain copied. Then you leave and go about your life. A decade later nanotechnology is developed and is used to rejuvenate your original body, granting you immortality. You go on to lead a happy and enjoyable life for millions of years. But is this really what is happening in reality, or is it just a computer simulation your electronic copy is living in? There's no way to know. You signed the form stating you didn't want to know. There is treatment available that helps you cope with the ambiguity, but you have no way of knowing if that treatment is a simulation or not.

In other words, no real change from the situation we find ourselves in now.

But what good does it do me? I'm sorry, but even if I don't know, by going down that road, I am guaranteed to lose, and the copy to win. Not knowing one way or the other doesn't change that. And it also really messes with my preference to not retreat into some virtual fantasy world.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

If you makes you feel better, you die every time you sleep and are in fact continuously dying moment from moment as both the electrical patterns in your brain and its physical structure changes, turning you into another person - The future you. I'm quite happy to talk about what I will do tomorrow, but I don't kid myself that the person I am referring to is really me. The tomorrow me is just a very close relation. Someone even closer than my brother and of whom I am very fond, but it's not me. The me I am now will be dead tomorrow. Just a memory. But I am so fond of the future me that I'm willing to help him out by brushing my teeth today and not spending all my money right now.