General / Off-Topic Imagine a world in which...

[glynie]

Try to imagine a world in which medical science has advanced to the point where every illness and disability has been cured. People with missing limbs could have them replaced, handicaps cured, diseases eradicated. Every condition was now treatable - even ageing. Essentially you'd stop growing old when you reached maturity, and if you were old, you'd gradually revert to a more youthful state.

Begin by imagining the world as it is now, but this leap in medical science suddenly occurred. You can still die from a terrible accident, such as being hit by a car - but providing you were cautious, you could essentially live forever.

What would happen? What would the world be like, or become like? Share your thoughts.

 

[ethelred]

Short answer : disaster followed by (probably) extinction.

Long answer: it depends but probably disaster followed by extinction.

Short term it depends on whether you have this med tech available to everyone or a minority. Secondly is this free or is there a cost?

if it's limited in any way then you're looking at wars and revolution.

If it open to all, then you'll be looking at population pressure, starvation, economic collapse and eventually civil unrest or war and a revolution.

If we didn't kill ourselves in the short term then there would be a slim chance we could get accustomed to this new tech, but you're looking at a complete society change that none of us would recognise - in about 200 years.

 

[glynie]

Short answer : disaster followed by (probably) extinction.

Long answer: it depends but probably disaster followed by extinction.

Short term it depends on whether you have this med tech available to everyone or a minority. Secondly is this free or is there a cost?

if it's limited in any way then you're looking at wars and revolution.

If it open to all, then you'll be looking at population pressure, starvation, economic collapse and eventually civil unrest or war and a revolution.

If we didn't kill ourselves in the short term then there would be a slim chance we could get accustomed to this new tech, but you're looking at a complete society change that none of us would recognise - in about 200 years.

Well, it's up for you to decide. It's your answer - your vision. Personally I don't share those beliefs. For example, a common answer I've found is "over-population" - to which I usually point out there'd be no rush to have children if you could wait forever.

People give a wide range of different answers and have different ways of looking at it - which for me is as interesting as the question itself. I don't know precisely what would happen either, but I try to remain optimistic.

No one would take any risks anymore as death would have an even much higher weight in such a world than it already has. Fear of death would be so much bigger then. But the points ethelred mentioned are surely the greater problem, all together with the result of quality of life being significantly diminished. Not sure if you'd really want such a "life" unless you're comfortable with living under a rock for eternity... I had this discussion many years ago with a young biologist who argued in the lines of "but imagine your son would have a heavy accident and only our medical progress could save him". He was, while otherwise quite intelligent, unable to imagine all the global implications.

Hmm. Perhaps the incentive to make the world a better and safer place would grow. I don't think people would hide under rocks - the brain will do almost anything to avoid inactivity (that's why we get bored). Also I'm not convinced that everyone would simply live in misery and fear, it's unsustainable. Feel free to share some of the global implications you mentioned.

The main reason I asked this question is not because of any vision I have or desire to see the world become like this. It's because I try to imagine how people's behaviour would change in that environment, and what those changes say about us today.

 

[glynie]

Are you by any chance a biologist?

I'm not him, but if you think I'm missing something, just explain it. Besides, I don't have a right answer to this question so I'm not arguing with you per-se, I'm just trying to establish why you've come to the conclusions you have.

Even a sudden "jump" in global life expectations for say 20 years has the potential to blow all social life on earth apart when mankind has no chance to slowly adapt to the new situation.

How so? Can you give any examples? I'm not sure what you're basing this on. Our society has adjusted extremely quickly when you consider the industrial era in comparison to the lifetime of our species.
I mean, when I try to imagine what you're implying, I think perhaps you mean the practicalities of providing for people for longer? Food, space, housing? Financial or psychological changes maybe? All kinds of adjustments to the current systems that make society tick. However I'm struggling to imagine how it could possibly spell doom of any sort. Changes would come, of course (maybe some difficult ones), but I'm not sure what the implications are which you're suggesting.

 

[metatheurgist]

Yeah, I don't think overpopulation would be an issue. Birth rate has been declining in developed countries for ages. Without immigration most wealthy countries would have a negative population growth. I think humanity might stagnate from lack of new ideas though, as the population remains static and slowly declines.

 

[ethelred]

If you study the demographics of any country, the society always takes a while to adapt to the change of improved medicine - e.g. The death rate and infant mortality rate drop, but the birth rate remains higher.

I've already said that the most immediate and important part is who has access to this tech. Even within the UK say, if it's limited to a privileged section of society, everyone else will be massively motivated to "have" it too. And by motivated I mean riots, civil unrest etc.

On an economic side, you are returning to the workforce everyone who has retired, leading to more unemployment, or a reduction in wages. Not only are these people returned to the workforce, but they are young and healthy. A surplus of young and healthy people isn't great for stability.

depinding on the tech, you are potentially making the healthcare, pharmaceutical and other industries obsolete at a stroke. Pensions and investment are heavily linked to these companies do the economic implications aren't trivial.

An example of seeming good tech having a negative impact on a society is the introduction of tinned food into New Zealand. The Maori used this to extend their military campaigns meaning they were not naturally limited by supplies which led to more war.

i'd read Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" as it covers population pressure, environmental pressures on societies.

i've not even covered the environmental impact. How do you think it would play out?

 

[Mephane]

What would happen? What would the world be like, or become like? Share your thoughts.

Some countries would outlaw it immediately for a variety of reasons ranging from demographic ("overpopulation inbound") to religious ("it is not the will of <insert deity here> for people to live forever") and possibly some other reasons that may take us by surprise.

Where it stays legal, initially it will be expensive and so only the rich and powerful can undergo the treatment, plus a smaller number of token treatments for tiny number of people who are terminally ill (e.g. cancer), purely for publicity ("see, it's not just for the rich"). As the cost of the treatment decreases, taxes will be created to keep it expensive.

Among these countries, some will soon also impose heavy regulation about who can receive it under and which circumstances. Depending on where you live one or multiple restrictions will apply. For example:
- The immortal must be sterilized first to reduce risk of overpopulation.
- Only few are allowed, you must enter a lottery to get a "ticket" to immortality.
- You must provide a "clean" biography; never done a crime, never done drugs, never been on unemployment benefits, etc.
- You forfeit all pensions and while you may live forever, also must work forever.
- Law mandating a maximum allowed lifetime. After that you will be rejected the treatment and start aging naturally again.
- If an immortal gets commits of a serious crime (e.g. one that implies a prison sentence), they forfeit all further treatment.
- Death penalty is converted into an eternal punishment. Imprisoned and forcefully undergone the treatment forever.

These may be enforced by means ranging from mere fines to capital punishment depending on the specific country. And of course, no matter what, if you have enough money, you will be able to buy your way past all of these limitations. Even if the unlikely thing happens and this treatment is banned worldwide without exception, the richest and most powerful people could never resist the temptation (honestly: who could?) of eternal or even just extremely long life.

Ultimately, the divide between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, would grow at an even faster pace. There will be civil wars about this as some countries fail to "contain" the masses of people who demand the treatment. Countries who ban it may start war against countries that allow it, in a form of "war on overpopulation" akin to but utterly dwarving the "war on terror". It could even go nuclear, and if it weren't so tragic, it would be the greatest irony ever if mankinds destroys itself over the matter.

--------------------------------------
That said, two personal notes.
a) Biological immortality is a realistic prospect possibly already within the 21st century. Our scientific understanding of how aging and diseases like cancer work have made great leaps in recent times. Be it through genetic engineering or nanotechnology (or a combination of both), there is a chance some of us alive right now may live to see this become a reality.
b) Philosophically, I do subscribe to the notion that death is the greatest disease of all, and not something to simply accept as "the natural way of things". I generally tend to reject arguments that are little more than an appeal to nature, because there are already so many things that are entirely unnatural but no one takes an issue with those: antibiotics; computers; cars; tv; internet; glasses. As for religious arguments, I will outright ignore them. Just because someone's "holy" book or imaginary friend in the sky has told them doesn't give anyone the right to decide whether I live or die.

 

[Iori]

https://youtu.be/_n7iIYhjiSQ?t=8m28s

 

[Minonian]

Short answer : disaster followed by (probably) extinction.

Yep! virtual immortality, means constant population buildup until the point of collapse.

 

[glynie]

At least you're thinking a little bit bigger than my biologist friend but still not big enough

...

p.p.s. allow me a last wild guess before I finally fall asleep: are you an American biologist?

Charming.
No, I'm a programmer. Computer and mathematical sciences degree. Parents are English/Irish. I was born and live in North Wales and so have a Welsh name.

How do you think it would play out?

Well, I don't know, genuinely. I sometimes wonder whether the world would become awesome eventually, or whether an evil empire would emerge like in Star Wars! It's interesting because my attention immediately turns away from the practicalities of it solely towards how it would affect people's thoughts and feelings. For instance say there's only a small population - you have everything you need and you don't need to worry about any of the problems you listed. How would you feel? What would you do, or plan, or think? I think getting old is a big factor in how we behave and what decisions we make. For example, I think if you had an immense amount of time at your disposal, everyone's education would dramatically improve.

Some countries ...

Interesting read.

https://youtu.be/_n7iIYhjiSQ?t=8m28s

lol Brilliant.

No-one's mentioned populating space yet. Journey time wouldn't matter.

 

[Minonian]

Populating the space only increases the timeframe until overpopulation but not resolves the issue, because the population increase exponential. You know the chess legend? Place in the first field 1 piece of grain 2 to the second, 4 to the 3th and so on...

How many piece of grain you place to the 64th? and how much piece of grain you have if you add all of it together?

No... Immortality must be limited, if ever reached! for the selected few, and even extended lifespan, and todays medical development causes significant problems and almost uncontrollable population increase.
In overall, if humanity ever reaches immortality, procreation must be (almost) completely stopped!

And the same goes to extremely increased lifespan. Otherwise the wholeness of the universe is not enough.

 

[glynie]

Populating the space only increases the timeframe until overpopulation but not resolves the issue, because the population increase exponential. You know the chess legend? Place in the first field 1 piece of grain 2 to the second, 4 to the 3th and so on...

How many piece of grain you place to the 64th? and how much piece of grain you have if you add all of it together?

No... Immortality must be limited, if ever reached! for the selected few, and even extended lifespan, and todays medical development causes significant problems and almost uncontrollable population increase.
In overall, if humanity ever reaches immortality, procreation must be (almost) completely stopped!

And the same goes to extremely increased lifespan. Otherwise the wholeness of the universe is not enough.

Well, perhaps the rate of reproduction could become synchronous with a measurement of available resources and/or death rate due to other causes. You know, education/equilibrium.

Anyway, that's another vote for the doom pile. Perhaps death is the way forward after all

I mean, joking aside, what strikes me about this answer is how you look at it. You may well be right - it could well be unsustainable - but personally I wouldn't focus on that alone when writing an answer. Besides, perhaps our world today is already unsustainable - or perhaps ultimately everything is unsustainable. I wonder what might possibly be achieved. Like imagine what you as an individual could accomplish or learn if you had more time.

 

[Minonian]

Well, perhaps the rate of reproduction could become synchronous with a measurement of available resources and/or death rate due to other causes. You know, education/equilibrium.

Anyway, that's another vote for the doom pile. Perhaps death is the way forward after all

Yeah, that's a plausible resolution, at least on paper....

But can you imagine the people stop living sexual life?
Because I'm certainly not!

You seem to grossly underestimate the size of our galaxy, leave alone the universe! [woah]
As a chessplayer I'm familiar of course with your classic example of exponentially growing numbers of rice corns on a chessboard. But even then.. we can't *fill* the universe, even not just(!?) our galaxy. Each semi serious explorer in ED should have an inkling about why by now.

Nope! I'm not.
2^32= 4294967296 continue counting, and also add up all the previous outcomes. In case of immortality, only a question of time when all space are filled up, and all resources are used up.
And if you immortal? Than you have plenty of time.

 

[Mephane]

Okay, my previous comment aside, if we were to make this work properly, fairly and sustainably, one thing is clear: reproduction would have to be heavily regulated. You would only be allowed to have children (or rather even just 1 child) when you are alloted a slot for that, for which you must apply and which are distributed, for example, as a lottery.

I understand that this would be a very, very bitter pill to swallow; one may live forever (or rather until the heat death of the universe...) but never have children of their own, and I do understand that a lot of people would rather choose mortality instead.

On the other hand, we need to realize that even without any form of immortality or even ultra-longevity (100s of years), overpopulation is a real issue that we as a civilization must take care of. I am in no position to judge whether Earth is indeed already overpopulated or not (I always hear how the food production, for example, is sufficient for all humans if it were just distributed better), but either now or at a later point, the growth must stop.

And no, space colonization will not help us with this issue anytime soon. Even if we successfully terraform Mars, we won't ship billions of people over there, rather like a few ten thousands, and from that an entirely new population would arise.

So sooner or later, unless population growth eventually stagnates without intervention, reproduction must be regulated. If we don't do it, it will inevitably self-regulate in a natural way. And nature has two primary methods for that: predation, which won't apply to humans, and starvation.

Super-longevity or immortality would makes this problem more urgent, but they would not suddenly introduce it.

And now back to the idea of immortality itself. I will quote wikipedia:

A death by natural causes, as recorded by coroners and on death certificates and associated documents, is one that is primarily attributed to an illness or an internal malfunction of the body not directly influenced by external forces.

Illness or internal malfunction of the body. That sounds quite exactly like the very things that medicine exists to solve. How can anyone even draw the line that says "you have to accept this illness and die, even though we could absolutely treat it"? How can you deny someone treatment that exists that would prevent their death? How could one morally justify withholding from anyone a treatment that gives immortality? Isn't that morally the same as homicide?

 

[Minonian]

Agreed. with one more addition. We can't speak true immortality, or at least not in our right mind. because to put it simply? Accidents can always happen, even if your persona and genetical sample stored somewhere and you can reborn in a new clone body.

This is what i call virtual or theorotical immortality, unlike the technical immortality what you mentioned. I don't see that possible, because as i said? Accidents and other causes of demise can always happen.

 

[glynie]

Thought provoking stuff. Well, leads me to another question: Do you think life today is better off without such medical advances, and if so, what is the optimal point of progress in your mind(s)?

 

[AluminumAlloy]

The biggest problem that comes to super high-tech medicine is the privatization of it--take Elysium for example, where medical pods that could repair any physical damage and remove cancer cells was only for the wealthiest people out there, despite the fact that there was already enough technology available to easily mass-produce these pods.

 

[Patrick_68000]

It would be necessary to migrate in the galaxy, to survive

 

[Monk]

War...war never changes.

 

[Minonian]

Thought provoking stuff. Well, leads me to another question: Do you think life today is better off without such medical advances, and if so, what is the optimal point of progress in your mind(s)?

The short answer is no.

Reason? What's the last time you cached common cold or flu? You wanna die into it? Well, without modern medicine you can. So medicine is going to advance, and we going to procreate like there is no tomorrow.