Immortality, Inc. was written in 1958 and was beaten by Starship Troopers for the hugo award, so it was well known back in the day. The movie Freejack came out in 1992 and was loosely based on the novel, retaining the spiritual switchboard and the filthy city environments. In the movie, Emilio Estevez was brought into the future so Anthony Hopkins could use his body to continue his own existence. In the book, the Estevez equivalent was brought into the future for different reasons. The movie left out considerable details and added stuff that was not in the book. The book had interesting explanations for zombies, ghosts, poltergeists, and the afterlife. In the book, once it was discovered that the afterlife was real, people went crazy. The author even called it "The Crazy Years". It could be explained and controlled by science, but there was a catch.  This is probably old news to some of you, but it got me thinking.

What if you could choose between immortality and the afterlife? Which would you pick? It's a hell of a gamble, the ultimate gamble. With immortality, you would never die. Meaning, if the afterlife exists and is "the place to be", you're going to miss out. With mortality, you'll get the afterlife - if it exists.

I don't believe in afterlife, so the choice is easy for me. But then again, I don't believe in immortality, either... I don't know, does God have any brochures on the afterlife I could peruse?

Actually, immortality doesn't necessarily dispel aging or prevent you from becoming a vegetable, so rather than spend eternity as a walking skeleton or trapped in a braindead body, I think I'll just die naturally. Even if there's nothing beyond death, at least I won't be conscious to care--can't say the same of immortality.

Thanks for the indirect book recommendation too.

Nothing is forever, at least not in this Universe. As the Sun uses up its source of hydrogen fuel, it will expand and eventually either engulf the entire Earth or at least raise the temperature on the surface to some 2000 Celcius. But don't worry, most likely life will have been wiped out long before due to intense radiation (from the Sun). Then afterwards the Sun will become a white dwarf, and the surface temperature of the Earth (assuming it still exists) will be slightly above absolute zero. So you see, don't worry because eventually no one will be left around to care about immortality... The important thing to do is to enjoy your life now!

-avatar!

"Fire And Ice"

Some say the world will end in fire;
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
-R.F.

There are bigger fish to fry, friend. You left out the galaxy-hopping prospect. The real issue is not the end of earth, or this solar system, but the universe proper. ^^

Ramza

As an astronomer, I am quite aware of the theoretical demise of the Universe (known as the "heat death"
But that is so far far FAR in the future, that it makes the 10 billion year lifetime of the Sun look like a split-second in the millenium. Thus I still see the demise of the Sun as the ultimate danger for life on Earth. Although honestly, I just can't seem to worry about things that are a few billion years in the future... I'm much more interested in this girl I met in the gym...

cheers,

-avatar!

Immortality, hands down.

Yeah, easily immortality. Really what you're asking is to choose between immortality and the possibility of an afterlife. Even if the chances were pretty damn high, I'd go for the guaranteed immortality. Then I'd go explore the galaxy. By the time the Earth is destroyed, you can be damn sure I've found some other planet to live on. And, by the time the Universe is destroyed, I could well have found another Universe.

I agree with Virtual Boot.
No Immortality for me, because Life offers things MUCH worse than dying.

Yes. I would do the same. With immortality, the human race would have sufficient time to "tame" the afterlife and make it coexist with "life". This is assuming the afterlife exists. What I'm saying is that we could find a way to move freely through territory meant strictly for dead people, but without dying. Much like those dead people can move through our territory - those supposed ghosts. Why not turn the tables and haunt them? Hehe...

His [Robert Sheckley] short story collections are incredible. Make sure to get "Citizen in Space".

I'd take the afterlife. For one thing, I don't want to live forever. Let's face it, life is painful. Even if you had all the time in the world to pursue everything you ever wanted to pursue, there's still pain involved. Death really is a release from all your troubles. If there is no afterlife, then I don't mind. And if there is, well, I guess I'll have to take the gamble that it'll be easier to live in that THIS life. (And if it turns out to be like Soul Society, then good god man, I'm screwed.)

Physical pain usually goes away quickly, but mental pain is more stubborn. If one has a lot of mental pain, then I suppose life wouldn't be very enjoyable. I've experienced very little mental pain, so I guess I'm very lucky. Suicide is a possible result of mental pain, but with immortality, one would be forced to live in a suicidal state that would seem to never expire. Suicidal minds still aren't well understood (according to Scientific American magazine), but I would imagine that if they didn't suicide, the brain would eventually carry out repairs. One could argue that the rationale conducted during suicide is akin to love. This is in the sense that they are generally impulsive behaviors. Imagine being able to step back from your own mind and observe. But how is that possible? That's why I wrote imagine.

I have to side with Schala on this.  I'm 31 now, and feel as though I've already lived a decent life.  I'm not sure I want to live another million years if I already feel fulfilled after 31.

think of the costs in moisturizers alone...

You feel fulfilled at 31?! Either you have absolutely no ambition at all or you have lived just about the greatest life ever. I'm hoping it's the latter. If so, tell us unfulfilled losers about it!

I'll vote to die a natural death, since the life & death cycle is NATURAL, just like all the other cycles on earth (seasons, rotations, etc..) and our bodies and brains are pretty much designed that way.

To be immortal, you cannot still be human.  You'd have to discard everything relating to the human body since that is all meant to decay and expire over time.  Even your brain & memory is tied to the body, so all you'd be able to seperate and take with you to a different shell would be "your core self" (aka Soul)...   

Well, having your soul take on a new existance is pretty much how many religions define the afterlife anyways, so becoming immortal sounds like the SAME exact thing as the afterlife, not a choice between the two.

All of us that make it to age 30 are pretty lucky, if you think about it. I would imagine, that with past viewing technology, one would find that most people did not make it to age 30 throughout history.

     As for feeling fulfilled, I could find things for you to do. I have some Khmer language textbooks, 200+ unread science fiction books, and a floor that needs a good mopping. Let's see...I heard that we still can't read Etruscan, no one has been able to decipher the Rongorongo script of Easter Island, nuclear fusion reactors use more energy than they put out, glaciers are melting, and cancer is deadly. Don't kick back yet - we got a lot of work to do.

I can't speak for Crash, but one does not need to solve any of these problems to be able to feel fulfilled.
He just said he's led a decent life, not that he's solved all of life's great problems.

Alas, Jay, it's the former.  For me, it seems like every day, I'm just waiting for the day to end so the next one can start, whereupon I will do...pretty much the same thing.

I will say that if people were immortal, we would probably progress much more slowly than we do now.  If you have a limited amount of time, you're more likely to try to make each day count.  If you lived forever, who would care if you took four years off to sit on a couch and shoot heroin every eight minutes?  One of my favorite PC games of all time, Arcanum, touches on these concepts.  In the game, humans are the race with the shortest lifespan, and the elves and dwarves decry the lack of foresight and patience the human race exhibits, which results in their strong technological drive (which ends up jeopardizing the world).

Each generation produces a new set of people with new sets of ideas, which is how real progress occurs.  I remember reading once that scientific paradigms don't change organically; the supporters of the old theories just die off eventually.

That's unfortunate.

I would think it more unfortunate if finding the solution to such immensely difficult problems would be the ONLY way to feel fulfilment.

For those who don't even try, yea.

But the universe is really big. Immortality would allow one to start exploring other places. Even with immortality, you might not be able to visit every planet with intelligent life forms, much like it's not possible to 'visit' every real number between 1 and 2 on the real number line. By my reasoning, a person lacking passion would be unsuitable for immortality.

   Some human minds are superior. If those minds could avoid expiration, they could gain insights from new information that the new minds would never see.

   "Everything that can be invented has been invented."
    -Director of the United States Patent Office, 1899

    To that, I say - those that know the future embrace mortality.

So which of the world's greatest mysteries or threats are you taking on, Datschge?

I can't recall seeing your name before, but if you followed the political discussions I was involved in (the better ones mostly with Ryu) here years ago you have plenty hints.