A Simple Question on Permanence

This forum is for discussion about anything else.
talah
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: June 03, 2013

Post Post #0  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:21 am

This is a thought experiment.

Tomorrow morning, a vaccine is announced which is highly available and which provides effective immortality.
Anybody who wants the vaccine can have it without cost or judgement and therefore will live forever.
The vaccine halts the ageing process and removes all disease and entropy, but does not protect from external physical harm.

For the purposes of this experiment, sexual reproduction is also rendered obsolete.
Anybody who elects not to become an immortal being on this plane will die a natural death and will not be replaced.
There are however tightly controlled methods of asexual reproduction which will only ever maintain the population at a number equal to the number which initially elected to live forever.

The question is:

How would this alteration affect approaches to "permanent" methods currently used to address actions such as murder - assuming the current approach is the death penalty or life in prison; is an infinite amount of time long enough to reform every circumstance?

ajfefijsleifjsa
Goon
 
User avatar
Joined: January 21, 2019
Location: Naypyidaw
Pronoun: They

Post Post #1  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:20 pm

If a muder happens. Have someone have a baby.

How does aging work?
Petpets is better than neopets. Brought to you by NordVPN. We are young.

Preferred abbreviation: ajfefijsleifjsa

ajfefijsleifjsa
Goon
 
User avatar
Joined: January 21, 2019
Location: Naypyidaw
Pronoun: They

Post Post #2  (ISO)  » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:37 pm

kill the murderer
Petpets is better than neopets. Brought to you by NordVPN. We are young.

Preferred abbreviation: ajfefijsleifjsa

talah
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: June 03, 2013

Post Post #3  (ISO)  » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:49 am

Well that's along the lines of the question I'm posing. If a person who had murderered someone could live forever, would they permanently be a danger?

The other side of the coin is, if a person who had never up until now murdered someone, lived forever, would it be inevitable that they eventually murder someone?
Although that's not the question being asked.
(those are at least the two logical extremes which likely describe the outer bounds of possibility in this hypothetical scenario.)

Not_Mafia
Smash Hit
 
User avatar
Joined: February 05, 2014
Location: Whitney's Gym
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4  (ISO)  » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:03 am

Force every sixteen murderers to have their memory of their crime wiped and participate in a killing game

Invisibility
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: April 17, 2018
Pronoun: He

Post Post #5  (ISO)  » Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:55 am

no, it wouldn't be inevitable
"invisibility is actually braindead" -- RadiantCowbells

join my region in nationstates

PvtUrist
Goon
 
User avatar
Joined: November 30, 2018
Location: Down Under
Pronoun: He

Post Post #6  (ISO)  » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:02 am

In post 3, talah wrote:Well that's along the lines of the question I'm posing. If a person who had murderered someone could live forever, would they permanently be a danger?

So murder = 100% dangerous, and not murder = 100% not dangerous? Seems flawed.

In post 3, talah wrote:The other side of the coin is, if a person who had never up until now murdered someone, lived forever, would it be inevitable that they eventually murder someone?

It'll be more probably be (much?) more likely, but it does not guarantee.
living la vida loca

PvtUrist
Goon
 
User avatar
Joined: November 30, 2018
Location: Down Under
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7  (ISO)  » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:07 am

In post 0, talah wrote:This is a thought experiment.

Tomorrow morning, a vaccine is announced which is highly available and which provides effective immortality.
Anybody who wants the vaccine can have it without cost or judgement and therefore will live forever.
The vaccine halts the ageing process and removes all disease and entropy, but does not protect from external physical harm.

Humanity as we know it would rapidly become... well, something that's not as we know it.

So immortality is the "gift" we've been given. What's the price we pay?

How much does this vaccine affect on psychological levels?
living la vida loca

Invisibility
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: April 17, 2018
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8  (ISO)  » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:07 am

manslaughter is a possibility
"invisibility is actually braindead" -- RadiantCowbells

join my region in nationstates

Invisibility
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: April 17, 2018
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9  (ISO)  » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:08 am

In post 7, PvtUrist wrote:
In post 0, talah wrote:This is a thought experiment.

Tomorrow morning, a vaccine is announced which is highly available and which provides effective immortality.
Anybody who wants the vaccine can have it without cost or judgement and therefore will live forever.
The vaccine halts the ageing process and removes all disease and entropy, but does not protect from external physical harm.

Humanity as we know it would rapidly become... well, something that's not as we know it.

So immortality is the "gift" we've been given. What's the price we pay?

How much does this vaccine affect on psychological levels?

i assume for thsi hpytheticcal experiment to work there is no negative effect
"invisibility is actually braindead" -- RadiantCowbells

join my region in nationstates

PvtUrist
Goon
 
User avatar
Joined: November 30, 2018
Location: Down Under
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10  (ISO)  » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:14 am

In post 9, Invisibility wrote:
In post 7, PvtUrist wrote:How much does this vaccine affect on psychological levels?

i assume for thsi hpytheticcal experiment to work there is no negative effect

This makes it slightly more difficult to work with. It takes compromises to be making thoughts on an idea that by laws of nature isn't going to happen.
living la vida loca

PvtUrist
Goon
 
User avatar
Joined: November 30, 2018
Location: Down Under
Pronoun: He

Post Post #11  (ISO)  » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:19 am

In post 0, talah wrote:How would this alteration affect approaches to "permanent" methods currently used to address actions such as murder - assuming the current approach is the death penalty or life in prison; is an infinite amount of time long enough to reform every circumstance?

The current method is fucked. It may or may not become unfucked.
living la vida loca

PvtUrist
Goon
 
User avatar
Joined: November 30, 2018
Location: Down Under
Pronoun: He

Post Post #12  (ISO)  » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:26 am

In post 3, talah wrote:Well that's along the lines of the question I'm posing. If a person who had murderered someone could live forever, would they permanently be a danger?

A person proven guilty of murder isn't enough context to prove whether they'd be a "danger", as the word "danger" itself is even more vague.

If people got immortal I'm sure they'll have no excuse to be able to do case-by-case and with context, as well as determine what exactly "danger" means to them, and what it means to others.
living la vida loca

u r a person 2
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #13  (ISO)  » Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:01 am

I think I would be even more against the death penalty if everyone was immortal

If you execute a wrongly convicted man with 40 years left on his life, that's a lesser injustice than if he had a million years left on his life

and we would need new, better methods of rehabilitation, but even that doesn't mean everyone could be rehabilitated

some people would need locking up for a very long time.
4-4

imaginality
Restricted Townie
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Pronoun: He

Post Post #14  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:03 am

I'm interested in how it would affect our risk tolerances. Like, driving a car is an acceptably risky activity with a 100 year lifespan, but if you know you could live for thousands of years (and want to), would you become too cautious to risk car accidents?

Oso
Goon
 
User avatar
Joined: November 28, 2008
Location: Northern California
Pronoun: He

Post Post #15  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:01 am

In post 13, u r a person 2 wrote:If you execute a wrongly convicted man with 40 years left on his life, that's a lesser injustice than if he had a million years left on his life

Justify that statement, please.
My Uncle always use'ta say, 'You can't get no blood from a turnip.' .... He'd say the same thing about gettin' it from a stone, too.
-
I never said nothin' back to him. You don't want mess with no freak that's searchin' around that hard for blood.

u r a person 2
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #16  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:10 am

Does it need justifying? Life is valuable. More life is more valuable. Intuitively, is it not more of a tragedy when a child dies than when an old man dies?

We prioritize rescuing children over old people "Women and children first"

Also women, but that's old fashioned chivalry (sexism)
4-4

PvtUrist
Goon
 
User avatar
Joined: November 30, 2018
Location: Down Under
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:13 am

In post 16, u r a person 2 wrote:We prioritize rescuing children over old people "Women and children first"

Also women, but that's old fashioned chivalry (sexism)

By biology, men were more expendable, hence this.
living la vida loca

u r a person 2
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #18  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:16 am

In post 17, PvtUrist wrote:
In post 16, u r a person 2 wrote:We prioritize rescuing children over old people "Women and children first"

Also women, but that's old fashioned chivalry (sexism)

By biology, men were more expendable, hence this.

Not trying to hijack the convo
4-4

Oso
Goon
 
User avatar
Joined: November 28, 2008
Location: Northern California
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:25 am

In post 16, u r a person 2 wrote:Does it need justifying? Life is valuable. More life is more valuable. Intuitively, is it not more of a tragedy when a child dies than when an old man dies?

We prioritize rescuing children over old people "Women and children first"

Also women, but that's old fashioned chivalry (sexism)

There is a lot tied up in those statements beside the values of life. PvtUrist's comments on that that are one of them. There is also the long held belief that you are not a 'man' if you put yourself over the well being over women and children. Also, the fact (opinion maybe) that adults (using my own anecdotal life experiences) value a child's life over their own through empathy. "What if this were my child and I wasn't here."

The view I take is this. Murder takes it all. Doesn't matter if the victim has one day or an infinite amount of days, it all gets taken away and therefore both are equally tragic.
My Uncle always use'ta say, 'You can't get no blood from a turnip.' .... He'd say the same thing about gettin' it from a stone, too.
-
I never said nothin' back to him. You don't want mess with no freak that's searchin' around that hard for blood.

u r a person 2
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #20  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:31 am

Can you think of any other scenario where stealing a lesser amount of something creates the same sense of loss as stealing a greater amount of that same something?

If I steal half the money in your bank account, I've done less harm then if I steal all the money.

If I ruin half of your day, that's less egregious than if I were to ruin all of your day.

If I burn down half of your house, it will cost less to repair than if the whole thing is reduced to ash.

There are some instances where taking a part of something makes the entire thing worthless. For instance, if I were to remove from your possession half of your private key for your crypto that would render the entire amount useless. But even in this case, I've effectively removed all of it from your possession.
4-4

Oso
Goon
 
User avatar
Joined: November 28, 2008
Location: Northern California
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:51 am

How about do no harm and not try to quantify the amount the amount of harm you are doing. I'd say that line of thinking is only valid in a situation like say, a wildland fire where they destroy [X] amount of forest or property in order to keep from having the whole thing destroyed. A case could be made for doing that on a societal level but that is something I personally don't want to explore outside (or maybe even inside) an experiment.

Consider this: Through medicine and scientific advancement we, today, find a way to vastly increase (or even not so vastly) lifespan and quality of living. Granted we have no way to deal with the eventual population pressure on earth (no way to get significant population off planet, which may or may not be possible in the future, I'm not a scientist so I have no way to know). The OP scenario would break down as I'm guessing that ALL crimes would be punished by death and the list of 'crimes' would extend to ridiculous extremes. Along with that there would be euthanasia at a certain age based completely on the thinking you put forth.

Even if life were infinite, to control population there would be a limit set in place because logically, if you were born after me and a population reduction were needed I'd get the axe before you simply because I was born first. Even with infinite life the thinking would be 'X was born before Y so even though it is infinite Y must have more left'.

[Note] I'm using the generic you. Not the u r a person 2 you.
My Uncle always use'ta say, 'You can't get no blood from a turnip.' .... He'd say the same thing about gettin' it from a stone, too.
-
I never said nothin' back to him. You don't want mess with no freak that's searchin' around that hard for blood.

u r a person 2
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #22  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:56 am

In post 21, Oso wrote:How about do no harm and not try to quantify the amount the amount of harm you are doing.

I'm not looking to do anyone harm. It's all hypotheticals. Your forest fire point is not bad, but I think it's a lot more like grooming than damage. I cut my toenails. If I didn't, I might get a hangnail or an ingrown nail. But I would never call cutting my toenails self-harm.

The rest of your post, while a fun read, is beyond what I'm interested in discussing right this second. If you want to discuss the point you originally asked me to explain, I would be happy to join you. Otherwise, I wish you luck in finding someone to discuss your ideas with.
4-4

Oso
Goon
 
User avatar
Joined: November 28, 2008
Location: Northern California
Pronoun: He

Post Post #23  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:00 pm

In post 22, u r a person 2 wrote:I'm not looking to do anyone harm....


You did see the note at the bottom right?
My Uncle always use'ta say, 'You can't get no blood from a turnip.' .... He'd say the same thing about gettin' it from a stone, too.
-
I never said nothin' back to him. You don't want mess with no freak that's searchin' around that hard for blood.

u r a person 2
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #24  (ISO)  » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:03 pm

Ah, well then I don't understand your first sentence. In a discussion about how to deal with crime (read: damage by one person to another person's property/body/etc), is there a point to discussing how doing no harm is better than doing harm? I agree that crime is bad.
4-4

Next
[ + ]

Return to General Discussion