[Bitl]

Now, here's something for this category, What if other people revive dead ones?

For a example, a guy dies, then taken to a hospital, an then comes back to life after a revival, giving him full immunity.

How may revival be possible, and how would immunity have a impact on humanity?

[LF9000]

Immunity as in full immortality? Or biological immortality where you are unable to die from old age?

[Bitl]

LF9000 posted:

Immunity as in full immortality? Or biological immortality where you are unable to die from old age?

Actually, both.

[joes33431]

you'd have to restrict births or face steep overpopulation which could, ultimately, lead to the collapse of society, even the human race altogether.

[Kung Fu Jew]

joes33431 posted:

you'd have to restrict births or face steep overpopulation which could, ultimately, lead to the collapse of society, even the human race altogether.

or we could just live on other planets

why are you taking the dramatic fascist stance, that is illegal

[1337KiLLeR]

I saw that should be given to the most important people of our age.

[PollytheParrot]

Kind of hard to revive people when if you're shot point blank with a .700 Nitro.

[eatdembeanz]

Only if we have some way to perfectly replace brain tissue. And even then, the results would most likely be very random. That shit does NOT last very long without its life support system.

[Liem]

PollytheParrot posted:

Kind of hard to revive people when if you're shot point blank with a .700 Nitro.

You would be a walking pile of mush

[Zombie Strider]

Over time Carbon and Nitrogen and such things would be trapped in the bodies of the living and because both of these are used to create new people (As we are Carbon based) in the long run we wouldn't have enough as they would be trapped in the living bodies of people that don't get decomposed into other forms which are usable.

It's a long long process and over population and starvation for insanely high food demand would happen quicker probably.

[asteroidrules]

Kung Fu Jew posted:

or we could just live on other planets

why are you taking the dramatic fascist stance, that is illegal

It's not really dramatic or fascist. I'm against it myself but when faced with the possibility of immortality the first and most important issue then is population growth. You have an infinitely expanding population in a limited amount of space with a limited amount of resources. This is why nobody lives forever.

[AceOfDivine]

Uhh, what does this have to do with immortality or immunity?
Am I the only one confused here?

How would reviving someone give them either super immunity or immortality?
If it's about immortality, we already have a thread about that, don't we?

And if it's immunity, I just don't understand.

[Sickle]

joes33431 posted:

you'd have to restrict births or face steep overpopulation which could, ultimately, lead to the collapse of society, even the human race altogether.

Or you could, y'know.





Colonize the other infinite number of planets.

[Spycrabz]

Biological immortality is actually pretty close to being doable, except once you hit around 120 years old your body would be so degraded you're pretty much dead anyway.

Once we get over that massive hurdle of ageing, then we have to deal with other issues such as overpopulation and the like. Sure, your chance of dying from un-natural causes would increase every day, but if we're already packing this planet to the brim with our 50-80 year lifespan (depending on where you come from), imagine it with an average lifespan of ~700 years.

A potential solution would be restricting it to only a cluster of people, such as only those who could afford a very steep price. Politicians, philosophers, artists, scientists and CEOs would all be able to afford it, but everyone else couldn't. While this would be the simplest option and even quite logical, it would cause a lot of power struggles down the line.

[carcarcargo]

Sickle posted:

Or you could, y'know.





Colonize the other infinite number of planets.

We don't even know when that could be possible, what if we have the possibility to be immortal but not colonise other planets

[Saber15]

Revival could be done in a way similar to the "Commonwealth Saga" by Peter F. Hamilton. People are implanted with storage devices in their upper spine that constantly record every thing about the person - their thoughts, memories, and senses (excess is trimmed down manually, so the devices don't fill up). People backup their memories in secure storage areas. When someone is killed, the memory storage is removed from the corpse (or in the case of storage destruction, the most recent backup). Bodies are rapidly cloned with the memory storage implanted in it, so the brain develops with the stored memories and thought patterns. People regularly euthanize themselves once they're past 50 years old, and regenerate in a new body.

In the novel, the cloning development leads to much slower, but more dare-devil society; it can take decades to advance in position at a job. However, it allows for things that would normally be suicidal - like using super-light gliders in hurricanes around volcanoes.

Debatable as to whether the clone would be the same person, but that line of thinking is more for philosophers.

[carcarcargo]

Saber15 posted:

Revival could be done in a way similar to the "Commonwealth Saga" by Peter F. Hamilton. People are implanted with storage devices in their upper spine that constantly record every thing about the person - their thoughts, memories, and senses (excess is trimmed down manually, so the devices don't fill up). People backup their memories in secure storage areas. When someone is killed, the memory storage is removed from the corpse (or in the case of storage destruction, the most recent backup). Bodies are rapidly cloned with the memory storage implanted in it, so the brain develops with the stored memories and thought patterns. People regularly euthanize themselves once they're past 50 years old, and regenerate in a new body.

In the novel, the cloning development leads to much slower, but more dare-devil society; it can take decades to advance in position at a job. However, it allows for things that would normally be suicidal - like using super-light gliders in hurricanes around volcanoes.

Debatable as to whether the clone would be the same person, but that line of thinking is more for philosophers.

Technically you would still die in that situation, you'd just be replaced with a copy of yourself, which while being like you in every way, would not be you.

[ironman17]

Spycrabz posted:

Biological immortality is actually pretty close to being doable, except once you hit around 120 years old your body would be so degraded you're pretty much dead anyway.

Once we get over that massive hurdle of ageing, then we have to deal with other issues such as overpopulation and the like. Sure, your chance of dying from un-natural causes would increase every day, but if we're already packing this planet to the brim with our 50-80 year lifespan (depending on where you come from), imagine it with an average lifespan of ~700 years.

A potential solution would be restricting it to only a cluster of people, such as only those who could afford a very steep price. Politicians, philosophers, artists, scientists and CEOs would all be able to afford it, but everyone else couldn't. While this would be the simplest option and even quite logical, it would cause a lot of power struggles down the line.

I'm not too fond of the concept of the rich being immortal and the poor all dying. It's kinda like that movie "In Time", where immortality exists, time is currency, no-one ages past 25, and the rich live practically forever, whilst the poor die young. As the protagonist Will Salas (played by Justin Timberlake, no less) said in the trailer, "no-one should be immortal, if even one person has to die", though personally i'd prefer an alternative of sorts. That alternative would be rather simple, yet also rather complex and esoteric; instead of researching life extension, search for a way to continue life after the body bites the dust. Yes, i'm talking once again about inventing the afterlife.

The way i'd go about it would be like this; first surgery would be required to gradually replace one's brain with more durable components, piece by piece until your brain is immune to the flaws of maintaining an organic system, in effect being able to generate it's own power to keep all the programs and stuff running as well as being able to repair itself.

Then the new brain, which is still you due to gradual replacement instead of simply copying the brain-data, is brought to "The Mausoleums", places where the remade brains are stored and wired up to a wireless broadcast system, in effect allowing your brain to remotely-control a "proximulacra" (a simulacra that is a proxy), a body for you to walk around in and interact with the real world. Lag issues would be present as always, so maybe certain basic actions, like navigational pathfinding and basic instinct, are performed by systems onboard the proxy.

An alternative to interacting with the real world via proxy would be having a "cyberspace" world like the Matrix, though that would require extreme refinement to make it as real as real can be. This latter option would permit a sort of "virtual retirement" from the world, and if the vast majority of humanity retired to cyberspace for eternity, then perhaps the world could grow somewhat "wild" and unspoilt again, with only the cybernetic mausoleums deep within the mountains being where humanity has effect, meaning the world wouldn't be scarred by war or pollution.

However, we'd need to clean up the world quite a bit, seeking clean and safe power supplies, before we retire from reality, since it'd be rather sloppy and inconsiderate to have coal-fired power stations belching out smoke to generate the power needed to run the world and suchlike. Then again some semblance of maintenance would definitely be required to keep the digital world alive, and maybe we could actually have the proxy-people around for minds to gather important materials when we need to fabricate spare parts to maintain the world.

All in all, retiring from the physical body to a durable mecha-brain would mean that we don't take up as much space on the planet, and could create our own virtual worlds to live in, leaving the Earth to grow naturally and heal from the damaged man has inflicted. If anything it'd make an interesting sci-fi story.

But aside from that, i'd welcome a rez if I died too early, though if there was an afterlife as an alternative, i'd probably take the afterlife if I didn't have any loose ends that needed tying up. Unless it's like some sort of pseudo-Hell where people are punished forever for accumulated transgressions; in which case i'd embrace staying alive to avoid the seemingly-unfair judgement. If it were limited sentencing and rehabilitation like what Hell actually SHOULD have been written like, as well as what the penal system should be like, then i'd be ok with it; i'm always open to the concept of something being wrong with me, which I think there definitely is, and i'd probably welcome a chance to change and become a better person.

[Errorproxy]

How is this a debate? It's a theoretical question.

There's Cryogenics. Futurama inspired.

[Fezze]

Revival wouldn't excactly make us invincible. Sure, it would make us live a longer potential life, but at some point we would be so weak, and then die anyway. I am up for revival because it is not giving us infinite life, but a chance to experience more of it.

[Bat-shit]

Kind of troubles me how debate thread starters are sometimes just uneducated and ask "what if this and that?"

To start with this debate; We are immune to a whole lot of things... And we have practiced medial science so that we can bring people back to life even if they heart has stopped beating.