Would you take a cheap and effective once-a-day anti-aging pill? What if it were a suppository?
Would you take a cheap and effective once-a-day anti-aging pill? What if it were a suppository?
You can assume that for every day you take the pill you don't age that day - if you skip it for a day you age by a day.
You're viewing a single thread.
Will it be simply cosmetic event or would it involve preserving the integrety of your internal organs?
If it's the second: welcome to Groundhog Day, except the rest of the world moves and you stay still.
You aren't aging so it's preserving the integrity of your organs. But it's not a time machine pill and everyone can buy and use it if they want, so it's not a Groundhog Day situation.
Your brain actively changes in order to acquire new information. If the drug preserves the integrity, when you close your eyes, it's a reset.
Thus, Groundhog Day.
Ahh I see what you mean. The pill is able to both allow you to continue to learn new information and develop normally while preventing negative age related effects like dementia from forming. Of course in reality there would likely be some contradiction there, but I'll just wave my hands and say the pill has magic fairy dust (harvested from happy fairies who are happy to share it so there's no ethical considerations there).
Let's allow the magic dust, then.
I don't think I would. Perhaps for a few years, at most, but at some point you would find yourself feeling alone and tired. Even with the possibility of stopping to take the pills at any moment.
As we lose loved ones, friends, relatives, our world shrinks. And that is something you have to carry for the entirity of your existence, the longing for people you lost or were deprived of. Or it could just be you to be forgotten by others.
Eternal youth is a burden because you would age nonetheless but only inside your skull. It takes a special kind of person to deal with "immortality" and not turn cynical or callous, assuming that at a given point you wouldn't just simply lose your sanity.
This is a recurring theme in literature and the outcome is usually the same: immortals long for the rest denied to them, as the world moves forward with complete disregard for their longing of what was and disappears.
No one has ever had to deal with this so we have no idea of knowing what psychological effects would occur. “It’s been explored in literature” does not have the same meaning as “it’s been the subject of a double-blind study”.
I think most “ooh it would be bad to be immortal actually” is just copeium - people convincing themselves they don’t want something because they can’t have it anyways, so it’s less of a blow when they can’t get it.
To the detriment of hard science, there are experiments that shoul not, can not and will not ever be more than thought experiments.
It's not very difficult to gauge how external change affects us. Unless we have a very special "wiring" in our minds, it breaks us in an over elaborate death by a thousand cuts.
Many people who lived long and fruitful and well lived lives left behind tellings, especially in the form of diaries, on how they missed that person, or pet, or place or something else. And this is something any human being can easily relate to.
Eternal youth would turn cruel to those having it.
We lose people we care about all the time during life and most of the time we don’t want our lives to end because we lost our friends, family or even lovers. If anything, it gets easier to accept loss as you get older. There’s no reason to think that trend would reverse.
Are you trying to convey we grow indifferent to loss or just accept it more easily or just develop better ways to keep our feelings to ourselves?
Over an average life span of 75 years we may lose, let's average, around 35 meaningful persons.
Now lets scale that figure twice, three, four times. Or even more, because who knows what other nefarious effects the sense of immortality would have on our psyche?
At some point it would grow enough on any sane person having to cope with losing one loved one after the other.
Neither - we learn to accept that loss is sad, but ultimately something we can’t prevent, and therefore we become more accepting of it. We learn that everything is temporary, so we learn to appreciate the things and people we enjoy while we have them, but we also learn to let those things go when we lose them.
You’re right that we don’t know what effect immortality would have, but given how, on average, the elderly react to the loss of their friends compared to how the young react to the loss of their friends, we should surmise that it would be easier to deal with the losses, rather than harder.
everything is temporary
Exactly because we are aware of our finitude. Remove that and it's an entire new horizon.
The way this experiment is proposed, the magic pill would deliver eternal youth, thus, immortality, which would erase that mental coping mechanism we develop throughout our lives as we diminish one day after the other.
I'd risk such pill would create a conflicting notion of wanting always something new but without the possibility of losing anyone or anything relevant to the individual. One loss, any loss, would be much more detrimental.
As a species, we are a living paradox. We have huge brains capable of abstraction and inovation but we crave the confort of familiarity and stability, of routine, as change brings uncertainty and fear.
If at some point we are able to extend our life expectancy to the hundreds of years, it will be an entire evolutionary step to take, created by ourselves. The strain on our minds will be immense.
He's trying to say that humans with unlimited time would become masters of many things
They'd have to practice every skill regularly. Any skill you gain if you don't keep it up you'll lose it over time. Sure it'll be easier to pick back up again but you won't do it anywhere near you did the last time