Mortal or Immortal. Which is better? A computer model

[Chibibar]

http://io9.com/5844172/computer-model-reveals-what-would-happen-if-humans-became-immortal

This is interesting. From what I can understand, the immortal group never grow old, always healthy, and can breed.

The mortal aspect, do grow old, do get sick and can breed.

with such a "simple" context, the mortal is looking good. The simulation introduce environmental changes and such. I think being mortal does improve our species survival over long period. Our newer selves have built in immunities or adapt to environmental changes of the next generation.

What do y'all think?

 

[strawman]

It's a question of individual survival, or species survival. Evolution favors species survival.

 

[Shegokigo]

Immortal species that could breed would be a horrible idea. You think overpopulation and lack of resources is bad now?

 

[Chibibar]

Immortal species that could breed would be a horrible idea. You think overpopulation and lack of resources is bad now?

Yea. More than likely the model is flawed.
There would be society change like before you can have kids one of you gotta go (or at least sign your own death warrant after X years)

 

[Shegokigo]

Well then how exactly are you immortal? There's way too many contingents.

 

[Chibibar]

Well then how exactly are you immortal? There's way too many contingents.

Well, you can live forever as long you don't want kids?

 

[Shegokigo]

Makes sence except for the death warrant part. Who kills you? How do you die? Etc.

Again, way too many contingents.

 

[Necronic]

Can I have a kid if I murder someone first?

 

[Shegokigo]

How would you murder them if they're immortal? See that's the problem.

Is it Highlander Immortal?
Superman Immortal?
Still Aging like the knight from Indiana Jones Immortal?

I mean, details would be important to make a real outcome possible.

 

[Biannoshufu]

i think they mean immortal in the sense that you cant die of body related aging causes, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are invulnerable to other means of death, (bullet car crash etc.))

personally, i wouldn't want to live forever, just 10,000 years or so, as long as I was healthy for most of it. (there's so much i want to learn about)

 

[GasBandit]

How would you murder them if they're immortal? See that's the problem.

Is it Highlander Immortal?
Superman Immortal?
Still Aging like the knight from Indiana Jones Immortal?

I mean, details would be important to make a real outcome possible.

I'm guessing it's Tolkien Elf immortal - you live forever and don't get sick, but physical trauma (stabbing, falling, bludgeoning, etc) can still kill you.

 

[strawman]

there's so much i want to learn about

The rate of creation or discovery of new knowledge is faster than your ability to learn it. The longer you live, the more there will be to learn about, just in the fields you are interested in.

 

[TommiR]

On the other hand, the "always healthy" part might indicate that they are immune to at least permanent physical harm, so it could be that they are immortal in the full sense of the word.

Assuming sentience and self-awareness, it is indeed intriguing to speculate what their society might look like. Strict controls on reproduction are near certain; after all the necessary permits are in order, maybe the kid or one of the parents gets put into cryo-sleep until the next orbital habitat is completed and they get more space?

 

[General Specific]

I'd imagine you'd get bored of life after a while. After so long, there's not much left that would surprise or invigorate you. You've experienced it all before and things were much better back in the 16th century or what have you.

No, I think we're fine the way we are. Eliminate some of the big diseases if possible, maybe prolong life to the Futurama level (180 or so years, I want me some Ultra-Porn, dammit), but no further than that.

 

[Adam]

The rate of creation or discovery of new knowledge is faster than your ability to learn it. The longer you live, the more there will be to learn about, just in the fields you are interested in.

Or you'll just watch every season of Survivor to the end of time. Because people don't use their lives now for anything useful, what would make immortality different

 

[@Li3n]

I prefer the simulation they did on Torchwood - Miracle Day...

And about that article, survival of the fittest was never meant to mean simply physically stronger...

 

[fade]

As far as I know, "aging" doesn't have to happen. It's supposedly an adaptation against cancer, one of mitosis's greatest enemies. It's the idea that you can only copy something so many times before replication errors make the new copies go bad. With a replication count limit, it's less likely that this will happen, but eventually, things stop getting renewed, you "age", and wear out.

I'm guessing it's Tolkien Elf immortal - you live forever and don't get sick, but physical trauma (stabbing, falling, bludgeoning, etc) can still kill you.

According to The Silmarillion, even that didn't kill them, it just sent them to the Halls of Mandos.

 

[Biannoshufu]

The rate of creation or discovery of new knowledge is faster than your ability to learn it. The longer you live, the more there will be to learn about, just in the fields you are interested in.

I think you and I come from vastly different points of view in life. Even if there was a huge amount of new data, I would certainly be happy spending my time cherry picking what knowledge I can with the time I have. It would just allow me to be more luxurious about how I use my time.

 

[Mathias]

As far as I know, "aging" doesn't have to happen. It's supposedly an adaptation against cancer, one of mitosis's greatest enemies. It's the idea that you can only copy something so many times before replication errors make the new copies go bad. With a replication count limit, it's less likely that this will happen, but eventually, things stop getting renewed, you "age", and wear out.

According to The Silmarillion, even that didn't kill them, it just sent them to the Halls of Mandos.

Actually, a predominant theory in biology is that aging occurs mainly because our DNA is linear and not circular (DNA replication problem). Each time your DNA replicates the telomere ends (non coding, repetitive endcaps) get shorter and shorter. There's a point where once they become short enough the cell reaches senescence and no longer divides - called the Hayflick limit. It's surprising really how much DNA replication actually avoids massive mutation through errors.

I can go on about this, but I suggest reading about HeLa cells as well. They're a cancerous, immortal cell line used in tons of labs originating from cervical cancer cells taken from a lady in 50's.

 

[Chad Sexington]

Actually, a predominant theory in biology is that aging occurs mainly because our DNA is linear and not circular (DNA replication problem). Each time your DNA replicates the telomere ends (non coding, repetitive endcaps) get shorter and shorter. There's a point where once they become short enough the cell reaches senescence and no longer divides - called the Hayflick limit. It's surprising really how much DNA replication actually avoids massive mutation through errors.

I can go on about this, but I suggest reading about HeLa cells as well. They're a cancerous, immortal cell line used in tons of labs originating from cervical cancer cells taken from a lady in 50's.

Do you know of a source a layperson could understand? I'm pretty decent in biology but I have no university courses to supplement my knowledge; however the linear DNA topic is something I've read a little of and I'd be curious to read more.

 

[fade]

Actually, a predominant theory in biology is that aging occurs mainly because our DNA is linear and not circular (DNA replication problem). Each time your DNA replicates the telomere ends (non coding, repetitive endcaps) get shorter and shorter. There's a point where once they become short enough the cell reaches senescence and no longer divides - called the Hayflick limit. It's surprising really how much DNA replication actually avoids massive mutation through errors.

I can go on about this, but I suggest reading about HeLa cells as well. They're a cancerous, immortal cell line used in tons of labs originating from cervical cancer cells taken from a lady in 50's.

Right. That's the "how". I guess I was giving one of the possible explanations of the "why".

 

[Mathias]

Well... Telomeric shortening has to do with the fundamentals on how DNA replication works. Basically replication can only occur in the 5' to 3' direction along the a single strand. 5' being the phosphate end of the strand and 3' being the hydroxyl. A double helix consists of two DNA strands complementary to each other; relative to each other one strand goes 5' to 3' and the other 3' to 5'.

5'---------------3'
3'---------------5'

During replication the whole enzyme schebang replicates the 3' - 5' strand no problem, straight though - this is called the leading strand. The other strand utilizes another mechanism to get the job done in short bursts of replication in the 5' -3' direction along that strand relative to itself, utlizing RNA primers to start the works. Long story short - due to the biochemical mechanisms to how these RNA primers bind to the parent strand, they can't prime at the very end of the strand, and a short region of the end of the daughter strand is lost.

Wikipedia is actually kinda vague as to the whole problem of DNA replication. I'd recommend Campbell's Biology. It's a freshman bio book that goes over the whole process with lots of good illustrations. As for HeLa cells, there's an awesome book out about their story: http://www.amazon.com/Immortal-Life-Henrietta-Lacks/dp/1400052173

Actually I like this image better:

Okazaki fragments are those short bursts of replication I was referring to. Each of the 5' ends of the Okazaki fragments on the red (daughter) strand had an RNA primer bind to the parent strand to "lasso in" the DNA polymerase ( the enzyme responsible for the addition of complimentary nucleotides to the parent strand).

 

[doomdragon6]

To reiterate what somebody said, nobody fucking does anything with their lives now. The ONLY motivator to do ANYTHING is knowing that your time is limited. If you have FOR-EVER? You'd never do anything. Nobody would.

I guess the more inspired people would go on to create and make the world better, simply because they could.

But you'd never go on that cruise. Or go skydiving. Or any of those things you "eventually" will do. Plus, you'd pretty much need to work forever, which would just get old fast. Unlike yourself.

 

[strawman]

The ONLY motivator to do ANYTHING is knowing that your time is limited.

I've never once thought, "I'm going to do this now because I'm going to die sometime between 70 and 100 years old"

My main motivators seem to be curiosity, acceptance/recognition, and independence.

 

[drifter]

Here's a pretty awesome animation of DNA replication

 

[Chibibar]

I've never once thought, "I'm going to do this now because I'm going to die sometime between 70 and 100 years old"

My main motivators seem to be curiosity, acceptance/recognition, and independence.

Well, you are one of the rare one. Think about procrastinator. We all do have some in all of us. Sometimes I go "I can do it tomorrow" and there are times I wait a long time before doing it, but then there are time I go "I better do it now or I won't have the chance" Some stuff it is easier to do when you are younger than old and frail like Skydiving and white water rafting. I am NOT saying you can't do these things when you are old, but you are less likely to have issue doing them when you are younger.

But if you are young forever, you may put things off saying "I can learn that later or I can do that later"

I remember one of the Star Trek movie where Picard encounter people who lived a LONG time (thousands of year) and one of the woman never learn to swim cause she thought "she'll get around to it"

 

[Mathias]

Here's a pretty awesome animation of DNA replication

What's really fascinating is reading about the experiments that concluded and lead up to this model of how it works.

 

[TommiR]

I'm guessing it's Tolkien Elf immortal - you live forever and don't get sick, but physical trauma (stabbing, falling, bludgeoning, etc) can still kill you.

That'd be a sweet arrangement. Live as long as you like, and when life eventually gets boring, off yourself or start taking insane risks for the kicks, one of which will eventually kill you. Sign me up.

To reiterate what somebody said, nobody fucking does anything with their lives now. The ONLY motivator to do ANYTHING is knowing that your time is limited. If you have FOR-EVER? You'd never do anything. Nobody would.

I'm no psychologist, but I wonder how big of a part the certainty of finality plays in the human psyche. No matter who you are, in 100 years you are dead, and can't take anything with you. Give it another 100 years, and nobody will remember you even existed, unless you were really famous. So if all anyone really leaves behind is a rotting corpse, why not just kick back and enjoy yourself, doing only as much as is needed to satisfy yourself and those around you? Why bust your back for something that is inherently transient, and won't really matter in the end?

Immortality could change some of those calculations. Now, you'd have an indefinite lifespan to throw at making a difference, building what you'd like to see. Planning horizons would increase from years or a couple of decades to centuries and millennia. One could get shit done for real in that time. For me at least that would be an intriguing thought.

Or perhaps you are right, and the common rung would be satisfied with an eternity of bread and circuses. So be it, it only means those with the will and drive to make those unlimited years work for them would face less competition and more opportunity.

 

[GasBandit]

I've never once thought, "I'm going to do this now because I'm going to die sometime between 70 and 100 years old"

My main motivators seem to be curiosity, acceptance/recognition, and independence.

Sure you did, you just didn't realize you did because it's so ingrained - you went to college at around 20 instead of at around 40, or 60, or 80. The time-limit motivation is so built in to the deepest, most instinctual part of our being that we don't even notice it - it just seems normal.