Is it Possible to Live Forever?

There have been a couple of new faces among the recurring participants at Sunday philosophy, and this suggestion came from one of them.  He expanded a little on his topic to garner votes; why can't science and technology make it possible to prevent decay and death of the body and extend our lives infinitely?  It is a very material and practical sort of question, but one that has philosophical implications.

For me, the question is what we mean by living.  For most people, the idea of preserving the body and preventing it from ceasing to operate is maintaining life.  We do not consider people with replacement parts - limbs, organs, aesthetic parts - to have less life.  As long as the consciousness recognizes the body as its own, life continues.  But how far can that go?  Assuming consciousness resides in the brain, can we remove it from a body damaged beyond repair and create a cyborg or android?  Would that life, that one consciousness, continue or become something new?  It is an idea that has been looked at in a good many works of literature and film all over the world.  In many cases, the self, the individual life, is solely in the consciousness, perhaps the "soul".  Other works, such as Stephen King's "Pet Semetary", do not paint such a clear picture.  In that particular story, dead bodies buried in a particular spot were resurrected and more or less thought of as the same people returned to life.  Later, they were considered inhabited or possessed by demons, but by taking over the bodies they had the same knowledge and memories as the people who had died.  Here is a great unknown, at least for me: is the self contained in the physical brain, or is it in the consciousness ("spirit")?  I lean towards the physical, but with no evidence to back me up.  Those who study these things would have a better foundation to draw such conclusions.  Further, what are the consequences of eternal life, or even just extended life?  In literature, creatures that are similar to humans but with lifespans far longer than ours are rather distinctly not human in terms of their interests and values.  What is pressing and urgent for us may be less important or even completely unimportant for a being that will see the same situation arise again and again, and see the consequences play out or resolve themselves.  One would think such beings would be more inclined to try to solve problems with long-term consequences, like pollution or environmental destruction, but they seem to keep out of humanity's way, until there is something exciting like a war or quest going on.  Humans who become immortal, or nearly, lose their humanity.  Vampires are a good example of this.  In many older stories, they are predatory and lacking humanity, if not entirely, at least in large measure.  In the last couple of centuries, literary vampires have become more civilized, but they are still not in the world of humanity.  Even Anne Rice's rather philosophical specimens consider themselves apart from the human world.  To have a life beyond human range is to remove oneself from human reality.

The Source opened the discussion, as is the custom, with a strong opinion of faith in science to extend our lives, not just in quantity but also in quality.  He remarked on several studies of cells, noting that we should be able to figure out how to halt their natural deterioration or induce regeneration.  He also pointed out, however, that much of human happiness is the result of our need to accomplish things in the time we have; with more time and less pressure, we would feel less need to act and consequently, in his opinion, less happiness.

Our Doctor spoke of the difference between living forever and just living longer, and reminded us of the dangers of extended life.  Many people live very long lives, but the last years or even decades are not fruitful or enjoyable for them.  A life of pain or unawareness is senseless.  The introduction from the Source was fantasy for the Doctor, since aging the pure biology, perfectly natural and not to be fought against, at least not in terms of defeating it completely.  Later he gave a more mystical interpretation, saying we do not know what we are, but we do know how we feel.  We know we are weak and need help, and when help is hard to find we create gods.  We want solutions, and today science gives us solutions, even though it has not solved every problem - yet.  He also praised the True Philosopher's prepared writing, calling it "for eternity".

In the meeting, the Philosopher introduced the religious aspect of eternal life, in which we are promised something beyond this world, often an existence of pleasure with our loved ones and without illness or hardship.  Some religions contain the idea of rebirth or reincarnation, but even then it seems the reborn is not the same person as before, but a new version.  He spoke of the concept of eternal life being something we can imagine, which makes it a possibility.  Also, as others noted at different moments, keeping the memory of somebody alive is one way of prolonging that life.

Our Leader. practical as always, said both in his oral and written contributions that living "forever" is simply impossible.  Til the end of the universe, maybe, but forever is metaphorical at best.  Picking up on the warnings from the Doctor, he stated that the real question is, How Long Can We Live? and that the length of life is more dependent on the quality of that life that the actual occupancy of time.  So, echoing other contributions, he wondered why people would even want to live for centuries, let alone til the end of the universe.

The Thinker also pondered this question, warning us that there are always unforeseen consequences when we get what we want.  Others brought up the comfort of religion and the fear of death as driving forces behind this desire.  Towards the end there was also another question about where life actually resides, and how much connection it has to the physical body.

So, it seems that this is another great human pipe dream, colorful, evocative, but not terribly productive to talk about without some good guidelines first.  At least the discussion did not threaten to go on forever.