Fallout Studios Forums

Immortality, the definition saying that you cannot die, Say you have been gifted with immortality. Yet you still age, over your life be it fifty, hundred, or even five hundred years old, and your age will show it. And when your injured you still have to heal, and feeling the pain. Is immortality by definition still worth it?

Gift or Curse.

(If you would like to suggest future gift or curse questions you can do so if you wish by sending me a pm.)
Edited by Numbers, 20 January 2010 - 10:00.

Immortality, ah. This again. It can be a gift...but it's equally a curse. I don't think I have to explain more...do I?

For clarificatin, you say you still become afflicted by injuries as standard and that you will show your age. But what about the actual affects of your aging body such as mobility issues, eyesight deterioration, motor neurone deficiency etc? Surely with such afflictions after you reach 120 years old, maybe a bit older you will end up nearly blind and motionless for example. How can it then be anything other than a curse?

Curse again, again W! has it with the ageing issue. If you could age but still function you'd have to watch everyone else die around you, would be very lonely. Part of me would love to watch the next few thousand years from a vantage point of restful decades asleep, but I'd eventually want the end.

Well if you're immortal and you're able to continue living forever, I'd assume that your organs would be able to keep up accordingly, e.g if all of your bodily functions were completely shot, how would they continue to keep you alive?

Dauth, on 21 Jan 2010, 0:49, said:

I was actually thinking about this last night, maybe if you were still capable of doing things you could dedicate the unlimited time you have to live by helping others and benefiting society.

Could you please properly define the issues you present? Aging infinitely without dying is in itself impossible, as the process of aging can be well described as the continuous progression of dysfunction from a microscopic to a macroscopic level with the ultimate macroscopic dysfunction being death. Also, if you are still able to heal no matter what, then why wouldn't this also extent to the process of aging which is, fundamentally speaking, a series of natural injuries. In essence, would the immortal you describe be able to vaporize himself every 50 years or so in order to fully regenerate to a healthy being?
Edited by Golan, 22 January 2010 - 16:56.

Golan, on 22 Jan 2010, 16:00, said:

While I understand where you're coming from, it seems like you're breaking this whole concept down beyond what it was originally mean to entail - by breaking it down to the basic scientific principles you are pretty much destroying the actua question. It's a Philosophical question, most of which often ignore science or real life to a degree.

@ topic: Living forever I just simply couldn't do. Extend my current lifespan? Yes, sure, not a problem, it would be nice to have a little more itme on this Earth to do the things that I would like to do. However, once I had done everything I had wanted to do, I would want to pass away, so in this sense what you propose Numbers, is a curse in my eyes - life would get boring after too long.

In this case, no, because you're not truly "immortal". Your body would eventually fall away, and without a body, "you" (as anyone would know you that is), would cease to exist. True immortality is basically being impervious to death in any shape or form. your body would not, and does not age if you are indeed, immortal. This of course, is the traditional sense, and not the case as stated in the first post.

Plus you'll get bugged by the world a lot because you're immortal. The medical community will definitely want a piece of you, and the army will want you as a live testing subject.

The other bit that I did not mention in my previous post, is that, if you're the only person in the entire world that is immortal, you're likely to go through life having and losing people you care about many times over. You simply outlive everyone you come in contact with, or end up feeling that no one will ever truly understand you because of how long you've lived and the experiences you've had.

Well since we're assuming "true" immortality now, that means you can take advantage of the unlimited time you have to try to benefit society.

E.g, doing charity/humanitarian work, or becoming a super soldier who could single-handedly end wars/conflicts (assuming that during your many, many years of life you finally figured out your moral standing and obligations, making sure that everything you did would benefit the world - as opposed to being a pawn for a single entity or faction)

From an altruistic point of view, complaining about no one being able to truly understand pales compared the huge positive difference you could make, but indeed, you really would be alone, and at least to you, who is immortal, life would ultimately become a curse.
Edited by deltaepsilon, 24 January 2010 - 10:54.

AJ, on 22 Jan 2010, 16:58, said:

But doesn't that mean that, y'know, there isn't an actual question as everyone is just answering his own interpretation, thereby rendering any kind of discussion or development mood as no one is actually talking 'bout the same thing?

Regardless, talking about the initial topic, I guess it wouldn't change much as by the point the effect actually gets noticeable (about the age of 110) you'll be a mindless Alzheimer vegetable unable to act or even properly think anyways. So, you won't be able to experience and influence much if anything at all. So, your body might life on, but your sentient self will be gone anyways, so there really isn't anything left that could be tortured by the process.
Edited by Golan, 25 January 2010 - 15:11.

I think you've missed the most essential part of the human condition, in that the finality of life is infact the most precious. Without knowing that we are bound to death exactly the same way we are bound to life, the experience of being human is meaningless. What joy is there in achievement if you can do this forever or where is the sadness in grief if it doesn't remind you of your mortality.

Answer: Mortality = curse.

Wizard, on 25 Jan 2010, 18:02, said:

In that case, Life itself would be considered as a curse, as it's only purpose would be to end...

Argetlam, on 25 Jan 2010, 17:07, said:

Without which you wouldn't feel any number of the glorious emotions and sensations that are associated with it. Life is balance. You have to feel the bad to know the good. You have to die to know what living is.

Mortality is what makes us human, I'd agree. Furthermore, people who only have a short period of time in which to live (cancer sufferers etc) tend to be one of the most motivated, out there, fun loving people that I know.

The fear of death gives us the courage to live our lives the way that we want to, to take risks, to get hurt both physically and emotionally, because you're fighting time; and you know from day one that you cannot win. Without death, there is always tomorrow, and nothing would ever get done, and people would never do anything. If you give someone immortality, and life, you will take away everything that makes it a life.

Just to argue for the sake of the thread I'd suggest that it's our capability to acknowledge our own mortality is what makes us human, animals are mortal *continue sentance in your head*

I'm sorry I can't finish the sentence. But I assume it's inappropriate otherwise you would not of done that.

...but they don't have any recognition of their own life/mortality.

Says you. (some) Animals show signs of experiencing fear as well as grief over dead "friends" just as much as (some) humans. Having been faced with death of relatives and loved ones numerous times in the past years, I can assure you that at least from the humans known to me, a minimum of 75% isn't capable of acknowledging their own or other people's mortality any further than being absolutely positively sure that it's never ever gonna happen any time soon - i.e. not at all.

Wizard, on 25 Jan 2010, 17:02, said:

I think you've missed the most essential part of the human condition, in that our brain is the limiting factor of our sentience. Knowing that our brain is bound to deteriorate over the years is equivalent to knowing that death is inevitable as physical life without any notable brain function is meaningless. What joy is there in your body living forever when the actual person passes away at the age of about 100 to 150?

Answer: physical immortality = meaningless.

We're going too much into science here, don't you think? Simply, immortality would mean being unable to die (You already know this...). If you ignore all the stuff like deterioration or whatnot, and actually look at the root/base/whatever you call it of the theory of immortality it'll be much easier.

The initial post explicitly called for taking physical deterioration into account.

'Your age will show it' and such are possible implications of deterioration, but it does not explicitly mean you deteriorate. He might mean it as in numbers. An example: "Hey look I'm 300000 years old." (I know, I know. Just loads of crap Feel free to proceed right on ahead anyway)