Who wants to live forever?

[Peterkin]

Given enough time, who knows what a human can become? Evolve, devolve or de-evolve? 

Given enough opportunities, one human might have many different lives and identities.

I think all of those scenarios have been explored in science fiction.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Given enough time, who knows what a human can become? Evolve, devolve or de-evolve? 

Well, considering that this thread in the biology section I feel obliged to state that devolving is not a thing in biology. Evolution essentially means change (of the gene pool) and there is not direction attached to it.

[Peterkin]

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Evolution essentially means change (of the gene pool) and there is not direction attached to it.

Oh. In that case: Given enough time, who knows what a human can become?

 

[iNow]

Just now, Peterkin said:

Given enough time, who knows what a human can become?

Something else 

[beecee]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

Something else 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Oh. In that case: Given enough time, who knows what a human can become?

 

Assuming that folks become immortal and that there are reductions in offspring, in principle the gene pool would remain (mostly) static. Basically there are not generational changes as there are no generations. 

[Peterkin]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Basically there are not generational changes as there are no generations. 

Where in biology is it carved that change has to be generational? Every organism changes over time, from inception to annihilation. Some organisms go through metamorphoses and/or stages in their life cycle; most simply mature, deteriorate and decline. If the decline of aging is halted at some point - and how is that point determined? What's the biological mechanism whereby it is halted? Is it truly halted or merely deflected? What happens instead?

If they become immortal past reproductive age, there can be no new offspring except through alternative means: cloning, frozen embryos, DNA splicing.... The old stock would still eventually succumb to attrition - boredom, if not fed-upness would drive them to extreme sports and risk-taking behaviours - and the new ones, howbeit genetically derived from a dwindling populations of immortal dotards, might still have variants artificially added, through splicing, chemical alterations to their in-vitro amniotic fluid and nutrient, or implanted electronics. They would also be raised by immortal dotards who are not birth-parents, and or robots. We don't know what they might become. If the aging is halted while the subjects are still fertile, they would need to restrict their reproductive protocol, which, again, would affect the gene pool differently, going forward from that point.

Of course, humans might just continue on continuing on, until they all died of violent clashes over scarce resources.   

[iNow]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

My god. It’s full of stars. 
 

 

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Where in biology is it carved that change has to be generational? Every organism changes over time, from inception to annihilation. Some organisms go through metamorphoses and/or stages in their life cycle; most simply mature, deteriorate and decline. If the decline of aging is halted at some point - and how is that point determined? What's the biological mechanism whereby it is halted? Is it truly halted or merely deflected? What happens instead?

It is how we define evolution. Evolution happens at the population level and essentially is just the change of a gene pool over time. Based on these definitions and individual cannot evolve. I.e. evolution is not another term for "change".

Moreover, metamorphosis or similar mechanisms do not change the genetics of an organism. We would describe that as developmental changes and not evolution. 

Individuals can accumulate mutations in various parts of their body over time, of course, but that is more related to aging or related processes.

I will also add that while OP was relatively close to science fiction, I think further speculation regarding an immortal society would be much better suited for a speculations thread rather than in the evolution section.

[Peterkin]

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is how we define evolution.

We. Not the people of the distant future. They may have a quite different definition. 

32 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Based on these definitions and individual cannot evolve.

I already amended my post to the reference that suggest individual evolution (which, incidentally, was a joke, howbeit a misplaced one)  to "what a human can become"

 

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Moreover, metamorphosis or similar mechanisms do not change the genetics of an organism.

No, but it does change the organism; i.e. cause it to become something different.

 

38 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Evolution happens at the population level and essentially is just the change of a gene pool over time

Indeed. But with our present capability, we can already affect mutations that nature could not. Presumably, humans of the future will be able to direct their gene pool at will, and over shorter time-spans. 

 

41 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Individuals can accumulate mutations in various parts of their body over time, of course, but that is more related to aging or related processes.

When discussing "forever", some of that kind of mutation might also be considered.

 

42 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I will also add that while OP was relatively close to science fiction, I think further speculation regarding an immortal society would be much better suited for a speculations thread rather than in the evolution section.

Sounds fine.

[Kevin_Hall]

On 12/7/2021 at 7:15 PM, zapatos said:

How so? Can you define what you mean by "value"?

Here I have a simple example. Imagine that you have an unlimited access to money. You will have an exciting emotional life. Only for a year or two. You will lose all the courage to live, your motivation will equal 0. Have you ever thought why reach people do crazy things? The plain example is "Squid Game". People arranged the game because they are just bored of having lots of money - now they need entertainment
That's why living forever has no purpose. When you realise that you have only 30-40 years, you WANT to live, you have aims, you have goals.
I will attach one interesting video on this topic: 

The experiment is calles Unverse 25. It's the most famous experiment on rats

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, Kevin_Hall said:

Imagine that you have an unlimited access to money. You will have an exciting emotional life. Only for a year or two. You will lose all the courage to live, your motivation will equal 0.

So Bill Gates has lost the courage to live and has motivation equal to 0? I think the evidence tells us otherwise.

[Peterkin]

37 minutes ago, Kevin_Hall said:

. Imagine that you have an unlimited access to money. You will have an exciting emotional life. Only for a year or two.

Why do you suppose unlimited access to money provides anyone with an exciting emotional life? In fact, people who amass great fortunes are excited either by the enterprise itself, which they would pursue even if it didn't make them rich, or about the getting of money -  not the having. This type of personality does not grow bored with the accumulation of money in a year or two, nor yet a decade or two. In a couple of centuries, maybe: it's not been documented. 

Their children, being given access to all the money, sometimes enter their money-making parent's enterprise and eventually take over the business, sometimes feel guilty and renounce it, sometimes have other passions to pursue, sometimes are spoiled and unmotivated; this latter group, because they have the leisure and opportunities, indulge in risk-taking activities like drug use and car racing. 

The mouse utopia experiment didn't provide for birth control and scientific or artistic endeavour... let alone all the yet-to-be-solved problems that exist in the real world.  People in our world who live a long time seem able to fill all of that time, so long as their bodies hold up, with purposeful activity - whether it's work, learning and creative efforts, altruism, travel, politics or sports and games - usually a combination of several of those occupations. I can imagine things to try for the next six or seven hundred years, given reasonable health and the material wherewithal.

Beyond that, I don't know yet; something will turn up.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Peterkin

[iNow]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

So Bill Gates has lost the courage to live and has motivation equal to 0? I think the evidence tells us otherwise.

Yeah, poor Elon Musk is depressed apathy personified and has just given up. 

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yeah, poor Elon Musk is depressed apathy personified and has just given up. 

What would he be like if he was motivated? LOL

[Peterkin]

U shudder to imagine!

I must repaint my keybpard.... or learn to touchtype.... nah, life's too long and I'm too rich....

[Kevin_Hall]

13 hours ago, zapatos said:

So Bill Gates has lost the courage to live and has motivation equal to 0? I think the evidence tells us otherwise.

I mean if you have an unlimited access to smth you don't want this anymore. 
If you have a lot of money you don't want to earn it, if you have no money your only desire is to have it. 
That's why Bill Gates does charity and Elon makes rockets. They don't want money, they want something more valuable and global. Now they have another values, more than just money
So if you live forever, there is no sence in such life, that's my opinion
 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Kevin_Hall