TED Conversations

Gerald O'brian

TEDCRED 50+

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

If the cure for mortality is found within your lifetime, would you go for it and become immortal?

On the one hand, we're not made for eternal youth. And one could argue that knowing life is short (or just limited) is what makes it worth living. And perhaps death is a major spiritual part of life, whether you believe in a soul or in a metaphorical one.
On the other hand, how is aging yet not another disease? Dying at age 80 is no more a "natural" death than being eaten alive by a bear or killed by malaria. In fact, "old age" is probably the most unnatural cause of death, statistically. So all that's probably just a cultural habit : diseases are evil but aging is good. Another point is that, well, things have changed. Perhaps our new environment makes it suitable for immortal youths.
And of course, becoming immortal only means that you die when YOU chose to die.

So would you go for the injection or not, and how do you rationalize your decision?

Thanks!

+17
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 24 2013: Everyone is answering this question within the confines of the idea of life. It is interesting to note that we do not so much care to include 'death' within the idea of life whereas 'birth' is tacitly assumed as included. Immortality, IMHO, does not ensure life (the idea with which we are accustomed).
    I do not want to be immortal to see my son getting old, infirm and die. That will be hardly any 'life' for me. If we all are immortal somehow, I want all memories of past erased so that we all are perfectly ageless. That would mean all stories, history, traditions, culture and relationships gone. I am very unwilling to embrace such an immortal existence.
    • Nov 24 2013: I am a little confused by your argument for a couple of reasons. First, you draw a correlation between birth and death both being a part of life, but it might be a bit more helpful if you explained what you mean. The way I see it, birth is simply a location-based change during the course of our natural development where we move from inside the mother's body to the outside world. However, this is simply a part of the natural processes which allow us to be alive, using our senses and doing things, whereas death by any means is the complete breakdown of those processes. The point of achieving immortality is to maintain or supplement those natural processes so that they don't stop (i.e. cause us to die), allowing people to continue living (sensing and acting) throughout the world.

      Secondly, if you were able to achieve immortality, the presupposition here is that your son could as well, so you would not need to experience such an unfortunate turn of events.

      Lastly, you say that you "want all memories of past erased so that we all are perfectly ageless," if people were immortal, but then you say you are "unwilling to embrace such an immortal existence." Could you explain because I am having trouble understanding and these statements seem contradictory to me.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.