In Defence of Death

I apologize if this isn't appropriately placed, but I have no idea where this would go.

Now, after that unimaginably long and still unfinished debate about machine sentience, I realized something.

In all situations, machine or not, we'll reach virtual immortality at some point or other. This is something most of us have agreed upon. Now here's the revalation:

That's bad.

That's really bad.

That's a two hundred pound problem with severe flatulence and a pimply underbelly.

Here's the deal. If we're immortal, than we cease to have sex for reproduction, and begin to have it just for fun. New generations never form, and eventually you have the same group of induviduals living forever, making up the race, never being replaced.

Most of you are aware of the many generational gaps in history, where there are fundimental shifts in the thinking amungst society. Now, what I hadn't realized was how nessicary these are for progression. Not technological progression, but political, and socially.

Most humans reach a point in there life where they are, to coin a phrase, set in their ways. This is where they will hold their beliefs through thick and thin, no matter what. Now imagine if say, forty years ago we hit imortality and everything just stopped. Now consider the gay rights movement. If that had happened, then not only would gays around the world never have marriage rights, but there never would even have been a movement. People would see it as a perversion, and that's that. No new generation means no critical period where children can be exposed to new ideas and ways of looking at the world, and without that, then humanity stops. No progression. No new ideas. Contemplation, yes, but never implementation of new ideas. We need new generations to test, and question, the boundries. Without that, experimentation doesn't happen, and without experimentation, stagnation happens.

Now, this really is up to the induvidual to descide, but I feel that death is preferable to stagnation.

Yes I think I briefly went over this on the exponential advancement thread

Imagine how devastating such a concept could be to society? What would happen to traditions such as marriage? Would you want to be married to the same person forever? What would happen to the workforce, retirement, pensioning tax, etc?

I get what you mean with the whole halt to social advancement...

But would it really be devastating?

I mean they expect that here on earth, death via old age and disease will be a thing of the past by about 2100. Scary stuff. Of course they probably wont be able to fix a bullet through the brain or any kind of instantaneous unnatural death

But they also expect that by this time we may have logical morality sussed.
IE all Laws, ideas, scientific actions etc will be just.
That we will be able to calculate what is right and what is wrong. Mainly because we will have computers more intelligent than ourselves and some of these will be implemented into peoples brains. They reckon that some of these computers will be able to work around moral situations. Depressing, I know.

So if a race does reach the point of virtual immortality, it may be possible that their social advancement will cease. With it it will also bring MASSIVE changes to the life style, society, politics and culture of the said race.

Pezzalis wrote:

I mean they expect that here on earth, death via old age and disease will be a thing of the past by about 2100. Scary stuff. Of course they probably wont be able to fix a bullet through the brain or any kind of instantaneous unnatural death

But they also expect that by this time we may have logical morality sussed.

I can assure you, with the utmost confidence, that this will not be the case. No matter what that sight says, humans will be human. We always have been, and we will be for a LONG FREAKEN TIME. Not 90 years. Not 900 years. Maybe 9000. But from the looks of it, virtual imortality will exist LONG before we cease to have souls.

I think that the thing that we need to ask here is if we will really stagnate politically just because we are old. Just because a lot of the Baby Boomers Generation are clinging to their conservative beliefs does not mean that everyone will. I know for a fact that my mother, who is nearing fifty, has changed her political stance many times simply from her own judgement. And i can only speak for the years that i've been aware of it. My grandmother was raised in a world frightened of gays, and she is the most tolerant person there is. Now, i know you'll all think that society made them this way, but that in itself proves that these people (note: people, not their society) have changed. If these 'older' people can change, then older society can.

that thickness is associated with the stabilization of the neural connections, which happens at a certain age. It's possible that a society would find it the best argument to venture in the universe and to allow the population to expand. If you get to the dyson sphere point, population will no longer be much of a issue since there'll be plenty of space (literately) and resources.

If we advance ourselfs either in terms of technology or biology, i think we can assume we'll improve our own brains, allowing them to be more flexible and rational in terms of thinking. On the other hand, just because you don't age, it does not mean that you're immune to bullets.

Lastly, when a species gets to that point, their own society will have evolved....

The question is, are people really going to die so that more people are born, and new ideas are created, that they will never be able to see because they are dead? Mostly, no. Those who do choose to die will die, and so will not end up carrying on the suicidal belief to the next generation of children that take their place.

People want to live, and generally wouldn't choose to take their own life.

Immortality does cause a lot of problems. We need to think of how these problems can be addressed, or if they can at all.

Before immortality is reached, there will be a new generation. Then immortality is reached. That new generation from when the last generation was mortal will still grow up and start a new generation. They'll get old and live forever, but the new generation exists. That generation will grow up and start a new one. So on, so forth. Just because you can't die doesn't mean that you'll never want to raise a family.

Plus, it would seem that with all that technology, you could lock people's bodies at the age of about... 30, no?

InvaderZim wrote:

Before immortality is reached, there will be a new generation. Then immortality is reached. That new generation from when the last generation was mortal will still grow up and start a new generation. They'll get old and live forever, but the new generation exists. That generation will grow up and start a new one. So on, so forth. Just because you can't die doesn't mean that you'll never want to raise a family.

Plus, it would seem that with all that technology, you could lock people's bodies at the age of about... 30, no?

Ah, so this brain-lock-up-when-you're-old would never happen. All good points.

However, even if there are still new generations after immortality is reached, the old generations aren't going anywhere. You will need the resources - space, nutrition and the like - to support all of these people.

The thing is that when immortality is reached, goverments will probably forbid having children unless the parents themselves die, otherwise there would be exponential growth of civilisation over very short time = overcrowding and starvation.

Commander Keen wrote:

The thing is that when immortality is reached, goverments will probably forbid having children unless the parents themselves die, otherwise there would be exponential growth of civilisation over very short time = overcrowding and starvation.

Not necessarily overcrowding. Any species with enough technology to make themselves live forever could easily expand their empire. However, food would be a problem. With the Belgiumtons of people around, you could easily assign a few to farming.

InvaderZim wrote:

With the Belgiumtons of people around, you could easily assign a few to farming.

But would they really want to do this for the rest of their seemingly infinite lives?

Both overcrowding and food would be a problem. Efficient FTL travel is much more complicated than it looks, and medicine usually has much more focus on it than experimental technology. It would be enough to quadruple people's life lenght by some medicaments (stem cells or similar regenerative) to cause problems.

It doesn't matter how much people are assigned to food industry, but how much usable land do you have. You would have to seize forest land, but by that you cripple ecosystems and subsequently cause huge problems.

I think this is a problem we give the player and say "Yeah, that's right. Deal with it." I mean, on Earth we're going to have to do the same thing in the coming decades. Vertical farming will be a big help, as will virtual worlds (a large, luxurious property in virtual reality means more space for farming). Other than that, you just have to try to research a high level nanotechnology and manipulate atoms into food. And expand.

Of course its not a totally un-solvable problem...

Heres some basic ideas...

Solutions:

(1) ~Expansion into your solar system~
As the name says, your ever expanding population will have to expand into the stars

Requirements:
~Space travel (At commercial level)
~Space stations
~Basic Terraforming
~Poly-planetary Agriculture (Farming on Terraformed planets)
~Extra-Planetary Architechture (Planetary colonies)
~Hydroponics (Farming on space stations)


Effects:
~Solves problem with an immortal, (mostly) happy population.
~Very costly, will take a very long time, a lot of research involved
~Some colonies in space or on other planets will not be as happy, may require more maintenance
~An unhappy minority (Possibly religious groups)



(2) ~Age Limit~
Once an individual reaches a certain age, they must give up their own life.

Requirements:
~Some kind of systematic way of ensuring this action
~Laws surrounding this concept

Effects
~Very cheap and almost no research required
~A very unhappy majority, Major riots while it is in effect.
~Buys time for additional research surrounding immortality whilst conserving population and resources IE food.
~Individuals nearing the age limit may revolt, go into hiding etc



(3) ~Child Limit~
Like in China at the moment, a family is limited to a certain number of children.

Requirements:
~Law changes

Effects:
~Slows population growth
~Restricts freedom, leading to an unhappy population
~Buys time for additional research surrounding immortality whilst conserving population and resources IE food

(4) ~Virtual living~
Basically a majority of your species spends most of their time in a sedated state in some kind of cryochamber, while their brain is linked up to an online virtual world. In this world citizens can live a perfect life. Their body is kept alive with drip feed supplied by robots.

Requirements:
~Advanced Virtual Reality
~Advanced Networking Communications
~Advanced Computing Technology
~Advanced Robotics
~Advanced Neurology

Effects:
~A mostly happy population
~An unhappy minority (Ecoogist, naturalist or religious factions)
~Can have a very dense population with no negative effect
~Food is in low demand
~Various ethical debates about living a virtual life

(5) ~Complete colonization of you Home Planet~
Basically your species spreads into the countryside, into or over the oceans, into the sky, and so passes the beauty of this world.

Requirements:
~Advanced Urban Development
~Advanced Architecture
~Lots of research surrounding construction
~Laws surrounding National reserves (If there are any)

Effects:
~Long term
~Quite costly
~Entire continents covered in city
~VERY tall buildings and Arcologies constructed to account for population
~Temporarily (For a couple thousand years) Solves the population problem
~Mass extinctions due to loss of habitat
~A very unhappy minority, mainly naturalists, ecologists etc
~Oceans colonized

(6) ~The Dyson Sphere (Or Ring)~
Basically your species constructs a .... rather large celestial structure which if built in our solar system would have a circumference larger than Jupiter's orbit. It captures HUGE amounts of energy from the sun, essentially solving all problems surrounding energy. Its interior is VAST. More space than on earth for living, whole landscapes can be constructed inside, the whole thing is typically built by self replicating robots.

Requirements:
~Highly Advanced Robotics
~Highly Advanced Space stations
~Highly Advanced Hydroponics
~Highly Advanced Celestial Engineering
~Highly Advanced Astrophysics
~Highly Advanced Computing technology
~Highly Advanced (Pretty much anything)

Effects:
~Population and energy is more or less not really a problem as long as the host star exists.
~Food at this level of technology should be able to be made from atoms or Energy--> Matter reactions.
~Still an unhappy minority (Naturalists etc)
~A happy majority
~Basically this whole population:immortality issue solved...


Of course there will be WAY more but thats just a few general ideas :]

What other solutions could there be?

Those sound good solutions, although all difficult, but reasonable. The age limit would be very difficult to implement, when it involves killing people/them killing themselves, so that would definitely be a last resort... Reminds me of an episode of Futurama.

Heheheh, poor ecologists, naturalists, and religious people...

" We could cancel going ahead, but would you all rather die when you reach an age that half of you seem to have past? Mwuhahahahaha! Accept it or die! In fact, I'm beginning to like the sound of killing you all, please, go ahead and make your argument, knowing I'll enjoy the fact we both came out of this happy and you dead... "

Let's hope that doesn't happen in reality...

it's possible that mind uploading becomes a solution..... irony: if the population grows too much from immortality there'll be wars and the numbers will reduce from age-unrelated deaths.... could immortality bring death?
it'll be a hard task, but not a impossible one, because science expands in all directions, and new and even unpredicted ways to solve the issue will possibly be found....

Alright, so here's the arguement:

Either the lock-up is a biological function connected with aging, in which case this whole arguement falls apart as irrelevent when biology ceases to be an issue. Or, it a natural psychological function that happens after we have been exposed to certain cirmcumstances: likely having beliefs unchallenged for an extended period of time.

I believe in the latter. The former may exist, but I think that in anycase the latter exists as well. This is an inherent disadvantage.

Also, please don't yell at me that psychology is just applied biology. We all know that there are gaps between each feild that generally lack coherent explanation at this time.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Alright, so here's the arguement:

Either the lock-up is a biological function connected with aging, in which case this whole arguement falls apart as irrelevent when biology ceases to be an issue. Or, it a natural psychological function that happens after we have been exposed to certain cirmcumstances: likely having beliefs unchallenged for an extended period of time.

I believe in the latter. The former may exist, but I think that in anycase the latter exists as well. This is an inherent disadvantage.

Also, please don't yell at me that psychology is just applied biology. We all know that there are gaps between each feild that generally lack coherent explanation at this time.

I think that it has some aspects of both. But i also believe that this is not a major problem we will have to deal with in the game. The player will still be able to manipulate the Nation Editor in the same way they could before. There won't be a new function or mechanic for it, right? So what are we really debating here?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

So what are we really debating here?

This is my question as well. I'm sure it's a valid current-events issue, but in terms of the game we're talking about, I don't really see how or why this topic is relevant at all.

Of slightly (slightly) greater relevance is the observation that sexual reproduction might halt, as contraceptives become 100% effective and death "ends". This stops new generations from arising, which stops genetic variation, which stops mutation, which, ultimately, stops evolution.

So if no one disagrees, we can say that:
* IF a race develops some kind of artificial immortality technology, and
* IF they somehow adopt a social philosophy that precludes sexual reproduction,
* Then they will cease to generate offspring, and, hence, "shut off" evolution.

Doesn't seem like a big deal, really, but it's a little interesting, and worth thinking about.

We're all talking about stopping reproduction, but what about if you don't?


Well, firstly the population will boom. Lots of new people being born and none dying, so the population grows greater and greater, and faster and faster. The species tries to expand but with the population doubling every decade (at a rough guess), they can't expand fast enough.
Housing becomes difficult to get as more and more demand arises. Huge skyscrapers whipped up as fast as possible offer basic housing needs, but they are low quality and it is hard to get out of them when you are at the top, so the young population quickly get unhappy, and housing gets suddenly a lot more expensive.
Food is quickly running out, with not enough farms, and not enough room to build any more, especially because that room is rapidly running out through new housing.
With more people, more energy is demanded and global warming reaches tipping point. The sea is rising rapidly, meaning less and less space for farms and houses. But, with the sea rising, people begin thinking towards floating cities, and quickly a plan is made to accommodate people using the sea. Using methods I don't want to go into because that isn't the point, floating cities arise and soon the sea is overwhelmed by floating cities. Sea farms quickly arise too. Problem solved, for now...

The floating cities mean things quickly start settling down again, and better housing becomes available, but then even the sea begins to run out, and skyscrapers are made on the sea cities, and food becomes hard to get, again.
Due to a fatal error the huge weight sinks a section of the city, causing mass panic. Riots begin and people begin to fight for food. Many people die, sea cities quickly loose population as people begin to think of them as unsafe. The people on land are packed incredibly tight together, and food runs out for most of them, even rationing doesn't work. Fighting breaks out over food. The population quickly dies off, taking with it much of man-kind's knowledge, until only a few, with or living close to farms survive.

A new generation arises, strange new religions form, with legends of the old civilisation. Space travel and advanced technology is a thing of the past now, the people are back to what is almost medieval times, set in these old ruins, with some high-tech technology, but fairly primitive in other areas. Robbing ancient shops for clothes and other long-lasting commonly found products becomes the norm, and people begin to thrive again, but dependant on the remnants of an old civilisation. Science is not as much of an interest, anymore, medicine is readily available in old pharmacies. But as they grow, they realise they need to take things into their own hands. What is the future of these strange, uncertain descendants of a once thriving empire?


And thus ends my tale of a devastating future, if anyone cares to make a story of what happens next, go ahead, my fingers can't take much more of this.
Actually, is this counted as off-topic novel-making, or relevant idea-thinking and thought arrangement of possible outcomes for the world as we know it, to be accounted for in the production of Thrive?


Thanks for reading.

I think your sea city farming has one little flaw: if there isn't any fertile land available, where are you going to get new land for sea farming?

My point is that outside direct manipulation of the Nation Editor, we cease to change culturally if death disapears.

Tenebrarum wrote:

My point is that outside direct manipulation of the Nation Editor, we cease to change culturally if death disapears.

Which means nothing in terms of the game...