Would living to 1000 be immoral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chaz0426
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chaz0426

Guest
I’m watching a show on history channel about the potential technology to be able to live hundreds of years past 75 and the technology involved. Such technology includes “growing” organs and replacing them when our organs fail over time due to aging and potential nanotechnology or “nanobots” which are very small machines or bots that can reside in the bloodstream and kill cancerous cells and other diseases extending life.

Although this technology is decades away still, if those of us like myself (21) are still alive when it becomes affordable and available and we haven’t died by other means, if we so wished would it be immoral to seek such means to extend life?

So far I don’t see any moral conflicts with the Church but to me it seems like it is playing God sort of. Although you could still die by accidents and other means and the odds become greater the longer you live of diying by something other than “age”.

Then again decades ago people thought blood transfusions and heart transplants were controversial. In the 18th and 19th centuries the average lifespan was only like 40 years old compared to 78 today.

Interesting stuff.
 
I’m sure the Earth’s carrying capacity would appreciate the increased burden.
Btw- “decades away”? not a chance
 
Immortality is impossible unless you either suspend the laws of the Universe or exceed them.

Living to 1,000 isn’t immortality. It’s just a drop in the bucket compared to 1,000,000,000.
Living to 1,000,000,000 isn’t immortality. It’s just a drop in the bucket compared to 1,000,000,000,000,000.
Living to 1,000,000,000,000,000 isn’t immortality. It’s just a drop in the bucket compared to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Immortality is forever. But it is worth nothing without absolute happiness.
 
Hmmm I kinda think it is playing God. If I’m around for it to happen then I would pray long and hard about it. But who needs that stuff? When Jesus comes back we’ll be living to 1000 😃
 
Eucharisted said:
Immortality is impossible unless you either suspend the laws of the Universe or exceed them.

Living to 1,000 isn’t immortality. It’s just a drop in the bucket compared to 1,000,000,000.
Living to 1,000,000,000 isn’t immortality. It’s just a drop in the bucket compared to 1,000,000,000,000,000.
Living to 1,000,000,000,000,000 isn’t immortality. It’s just a drop in the bucket compared to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Immortality is forever. But it is worth nothing without absolute happiness.
Click to expand...
He said immoral, not immortal
 
Why would anyone want to live on this sinful earth for hundreds of years? Personally, I’d prefer to die naturally when my time comes and go to Heaven. It’ll be much better up there. 👍
 
I don’t know how accurate this is, but I remember hearing years ago that even if humans did not die natural deaths, they would probably only live 300 years or so. The odds are that you would be killed in an accident or intentionally killed by someone else before reaching that age. Has anyone else ever heard this?
 
bacon_man said:
He said immoral, not immortal
Click to expand...
Gosh! You’re right. I read immortal as well. I thought it was a strange question, but now it’s become rather interesting. Since there is a limited amount of energy available for life in this world, it stands to reason that living an exceptionally long time (if it was a choice) and not releasing that energy for new life to be created, could be construed as an immoral decision. I’ve never really thought about it before.
 
I be the first one doing it, I am 17, so in 60 years I be 77. They will probably have something to extend my life, maybe not to 1000, but to 120 or 150.

Then once another 30 years or more go by then they will have something to reverse my age, and make me live to whatever. 60 or 70 years for modern technology is going to be a lot. Just like in a 100 years we manage to have all this. It’s real.

I am doing it. I will die one day, but I want to live here as long as possible. I see it the same as today’s medicine and ways to keep us alive.
 
As long as you aren’t doing anything immoral to make it happen such as harvesting organs from people who already are using them or create them from embryo’s I don’t think it is a problem.
 
One lives as long as God permits one to live. Methuselah was 969 – almost made it!
 
One has to wonder how long God thinks it takes for our trial on earth?
 
I am not persuaded that it would be immoral per se, given nothing more.

However, I am inclined to question how we would tolerate it psychologically. This world is not unremittingly awful, but neither is it all that great. I can’t prove it, but I am inclined to think we are psychologically and spiritually (as well as physically) programmed to be on this world only so long. If nothing else, would we still love beer after 800 years of drinking it? 500 years of chemically-ripened tomatoes? And when we had read every book remotely worth reading and the same things happened on our 600th birthday that happened on our 200th, 201st, 202nd, etc., how would we see that?

Also, I would fear such a world. Imagine living on the same planet with George Soros for 1000 years. He would own everything by his 400th birthday, and we would all be lucky if he gave us so much as a crumb to eat or ten square inches to stand on.

Imagine living with Stalin, Hitler, Osama Bin Ladin and Kim Jong-il for 1000 years.
 
Immortality seems desirable, but in Greek and Roman myth the concept of human immortality becomes a curse for those humans who accept it. Even in modern mythology, refering to vampire stories and movies, the vampire often sees himself as doomed to immortality and hates his life. When I was 17 I thought there was no downside to life and the thought of living forever seemed enticing. Now that I’ve reached the still relatively young age of 52, I can see how many folks look forward to an end to natural life and are not that unhappy to let go of it. I remember my 90 plus year old grandmother telling me that death is as much a blessing as life when viewed from a position of age. Indeed, when viewed from the point of view of faith, death becomes a release, an adventure and a joy to contemplate.
 
chaz0426 said:
I’m watching a show on history channel about the potential technology to be able to live hundreds of years past 75 and the technology involved. Such technology includes “growing” organs and replacing them when our organs fail over time due to aging and potential nanotechnology or “nanobots” which are very small machines or bots that can reside in the bloodstream and kill cancerous cells and other diseases extending life.

Although this technology is decades away still, if those of us like myself (21) are still alive when it becomes affordable and available and we haven’t died by other means, if we so wished would it be immoral to seek such means to extend life?

So far I don’t see any moral conflicts with the Church but to me it seems like it is playing God sort of. Although you could still die by accidents and other means and the odds become greater the longer you live of diying by something other than “age”.

Then again decades ago people thought blood transfusions and heart transplants were controversial. In the 18th and 19th centuries the average lifespan was only like 40 years old compared to 78 today.

Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...
Re: The Catholic position… I assumed it was Catholic theology that things that are unnatural are immoral. That’s why contraception is wrong. That’s why homosexuality is wrong. If you apply the same reasoning, then extending one’s life artificially (in other words, NOT naturally) is wrong because it is unnatural.

Now my own position begins with the acknowledgment that (1) there is no objective meaning to anything and (2) no objective morality. The real question for me is, would it be conductive to a society I would prefer to live in for people to live 1000 years? Hmm… We’d have to REALLY slow down on our reproduction, else we might have some serious overpopulation concerns in a couple hundred years. But if we figure that one issue out, I don’t see how that would be particularly bad for the type of society I’d prefer to live in.
 
Exalt said:
Re: The Catholic position… I assumed it was Catholic theology that things that are unnatural are immoral. That’s why contraception is wrong. That’s why homosexuality is wrong. If you apply the same reasoning, then extending one’s life artificially (in other words, NOT naturally) is wrong because it is unnatural.

Now my own position begins with the acknowledgment that (1) there is no objective meaning to anything and (2) no objective morality. The real question for me is, would it be conductive to a society I would prefer to live in for people to live 1000 years? Hmm… We’d have to REALLY slow down on our reproduction, else we might have some serious overpopulation concerns in a couple hundred years. But if we figure that one issue out, I don’t see how that would be particularly bad for the type of society I’d prefer to live in.
Click to expand...
I believe your assumption concerning Catholic theology requires more thinking. One extends one’s life artificially by receiving a heart transplant, but it is not against Catholic morality to receive one.
 
If willed by God I would wait 1000 years to see Him. Perhaps many of us are headed to purgatory. More time.
 
Tsuwano said:
I believe your assumption concerning Catholic theology requires more thinking. One extends one’s life artificially by receiving a heart transplant, but it is not against Catholic morality to receive one.
Click to expand...
Unless *that *doesn’t follow the standard of Catholic logic either. Either natural/unnatural is a rubric for morality or it isn’t, right? Why does it apply with sex - but not with extending one’s life?

Doesn’t appear to make sense to me.
 
Exalt said:
Unless *that *doesn’t follow the standard of Catholic logic either. Either natural/unnatural is a rubric for morality or it isn’t, right? Why does it apply with sex - but not with extending one’s life?

Doesn’t appear to make sense to me.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I’m not convinced that natural / unnatural is a rubric for Catholic morality in and of itself. The rubric for Catholic morality is genuine love for the other. The question is what constitutes genuine love for the other and engenders human dignity.
 
Tsuwano said:
Perhaps, but I’m not convinced that natural / unnatural is a rubric for Catholic morality in and of itself. The rubric for Catholic morality is genuine love for the other. The question is what constitutes genuine love for the other and engenders human dignity.
Click to expand...
I am not a theologian, but it has long been my understanding of what is “natural” for any being is to tend toward its ultimate end or purpose. For humans, that is ultimate union with God, not taking on the attributes and purposes of other creatures.

Whether extended life spans for humans is "natural"or “unnatural” is therefore determined by whether it brings humans more effectively to their ultimate goal, not whether the lives of other creatures (or cave men for that matter) are, or are not, extended.

But I still have to wonder whether the physical clock we all inherit applies to us in other ways as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top