TED Conversations

Arthanari Chandrasekaran

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How can we humans become immortal.

I came across a species called Turritopsis nutricula which seems to be biologically immortal.

It's the dream of every human being or may be every living being in this world, but how to become immortal and have never ending life at least biologically.

Lets twist some connections in our brain and find out its possibility and what will be the consequences if our dream comes to reality.

Topics: brain immorta life science
0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Allan Macdougall 50+

    • +3
    Jun 30 2012: What would be the point of me being immortal? All it would do would be to degrade, devalue, and make difficult the lives of those who come after me. Planet earth is not designed to cope with immortality - and neither should we even attempt to force the issue.

    Death is an essential part of life, and immortality is certainly not the dream of this living being.
    • thumb

      Krisztián Pintér 200+

      • 0
      TED Translator
      Jul 2 2012: there is a lot of assumptions here. the fact that i live forever does not in any way affect the planet. the number of people does, in a way. you have that hidden assumption that immortality leads to increasing population. but this is not a necessity.

      the claim that "death is part of life" is a circular argument. as of now, it is. but we are just now discussing whether we can change that. and if we can change it, it will not anymore be a part of it.
      • thumb

        Allan Macdougall 50+

        • 0
        Jul 2 2012: Hi Krisztián. Would you say that immortality itself is a bit of an assumption too?

        My argument is not so much about population numbers alone, but numbers multiplied by lifestyle expectations.

        You may or may not agree with the hypothesis that our planet is a self-sustaining single organism (refer to James Lovelock's 'Gaia Theory'). I happen to think the hypothesis is very plausible.

        I think introducing the stressors of immortality to an already struggling organism, will very likely affect the planet. I would be interested to hear why you think it wouldn't?

        The lifestyle expectations of modern mortals is already unsustainable. To introduce immortality into that equation, added to those same expectations, will be nothing short of disastrous.

        I think nature should be allowed to run its own course. It is the only guarantee of a healthy planet.
        • thumb

          Krisztián Pintér 200+

          • 0
          TED Translator
          Jul 2 2012: first, no, i did not claim that immortality is possible. you claimed that it is not possible. both its possibility or its impossibility are claims that require proof or at least support. as of now, we don't know the answer. and that is my point.

          immortality leads to increasing population IF(!) children are born. but if only that much children are born as people die, the population can be stable.

          such "theories" like tha gaia "theory" does not classify as scientific theories. theories have verifiable predictions that are not known at the moment of formulating the theory. but even if they were theories, they are certainly not well established theories.

          nature does not run its own course for long time. we use heating, clothing, farming, medicine and many other stuff. eliminating aging is just another step (series of steps) on that path. again, it is either possible or not, but not in any way a game changer or fundamentally different than what we have today.
      • thumb

        Allan Macdougall 50+

        • 0
        Jul 2 2012: Yes, I've already stated that Gaia is a hypothesis and has not yet been scientifically proven. It is a hypothesis that I choose to hang my hat on right now, until something even more plausible comes along.

        I need to ask you some questions, based on the supposition that immortality is possible:

        What about my main point about the 'lifestyle expectations' of a mortal population as opposed to the expectations of an immortal one? Would they will be different in any way, with regard to demand on natural resources?

        Would an immortal population eventually supersede a mortal one?

        How would that affect the moral and ethical behaviour of those who can afford immortality - and would that lead to the engineering of a social elite over and above those who cannot afford it? (assuming immortality would be a very expensive privilege for those who have the money to do it).

        How would immortality affect our own evolutionary path?
        • thumb

          Krisztián Pintér 200+

          • 0
          TED Translator
          Jul 2 2012: more plausible is simply our knowledge without the gaia hypothesis. and you don't have to wait for it, it is already here.

          i have no idea how eternal life would change lifestyle. i see no direct connection, and i don't think anyone can reliably forecast how people would react on average. but i also don't see how would that affect what we were talking about. whatever the consequences are, it has no bearing whatsoever on its plausibility.

          as an example, imagine two cave men talking about lengthening human longevity. they would say: what are the implications? if we make people live 3 (4, 5) times longer, it immediately triples (quadruples, etc) the population at any time. what would the consequences be? and how would it affect the lifestyle of people?

          this conversation seems as valid as your concerns about living forever. yet, i believe, you don't advocate shortening human life, and i also believe that you think giving people extra years or a decade is a good thing. so how can we think that long life is good, longer life is better, but eternal life is unnatural and wrong?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.