[rayiner]

Immortality would be spitting in the face of humanity. A race of immortals has no need) or very little need) for children. Such a society would be joyless and without vitality, without the “firsts” that happen only once in a lifetime no matter how long you live.

People imagine that life extension would mean that people would have time to see the world, to read every book, etc. But that’s not what makes most people happy. Most people won’t read Shakespeare no matter how long they live. Immortality would condemn your average person to a pretty awful existence.

[knodi123]

Here's a modest proposal: All these benefits to a <100 year lifespan would be even more dramatic with a <50 year lifespan. Just think how much more meaningful each year would be, if you only got half as many! Think of how many more "firsts" there would be if we execute people who turn 50!

[XiJInPaddington]

That's pure speculation. We don't know what they would want, what they would do, how their society would be arranged. The only thing we know about a race of immortals is the fact that they are immortal.

[edanm]

Thought experiment - one day aliens come to earth. It turns out they have incredibly long lifespans (practically immortal by our standards). They also have very very few children. This kind of setup has been imagined in plenty of SF novels.

This kind of scenario seems to contradict your post. Here are options that I see, which do you think is correct (or am I missing something):

1. This kind of scenario, while fun to imagine, is actually impossible. They can't actually be happy without children or with such long lives.

2. This kind of scenario is certainly possible for aliens, but impossible for humans specifically.

3. You would actually recommend to the aliens to die after 100 years instead, as that would make their lives more meaningful.

4. Something else...?

Also, to answer one specific point you raise:

> People imagine that life extension would mean that people would have time to see the world, to read every book, etc. But that’s not what makes most people happy.

I mean, sure, I imagine what would make me happy if I lived forever. But I'm perfectly happy if most people did more of what made them happy, and I'm perfectly aware that doesn't mean most people would read Shakespeare. Who cares? Let them read / watch / do whatever they want, just like they do in life right now. Most of what I enjoy wouldn't make most people happy, and it's not reading Shakespeare either.

[temp0826]

I think we’d find something to do. Play ball!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17776

https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football

[kiba]

Excuse me? Lot of people enjoyed life without having children.

[rayiner]

It’s not about individuals having children, but a society that collectively has few to no children. 9 out of 10 people age 45+, if they had to do it all again, would have had children: https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.asp.... Only 1 in 10 wouldn’t have had kids if they had to do it over. Immortality would universalize the experience of the 10% to the other 90% of the population.

[kiba]

And? Having children isn't the sole determinant of our well being/happiness nor do they necessarily actually determine happiness.

Moreover, it's a reflection of current society, not a society of immortals. People for the most part considered immortality a foolish dream or actively hostile to the idea, driven by cultural inertia and active cultural reinforcement.

[thefounder]

Lol...I'm pretty sure people would actually be happier.

[cambalache]

Please feel free to transfer to me all the years of your life you dont want

[Nursie]

Massive, sweeping, baseless assertions there.

[runsWphotons]

Yes but what do you want on this topic? Speculating about immortality is also baseless.

[Nursie]

Speculation is indeed somewhat baseless, however I think it's a bit off to attribute all joy in the world to kids!

[rayiner]

Not all of the joy, but a lot of it. My dad was born in a village in Bangladesh. Like a real village. They practiced subsistence agriculture and didn’t get electricity until the 1990s. One out of every three children died before age 5. They lacked of everything a typical child-free American would need to consider life tolerable. But believe it or not, most were pretty happy.

As of 2016, the average income in Bangladesh was around $2/day: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/bangladesh/annual-hous....

The same year, 66% of people reported they were “very happy” with their life. https://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/bangladesh-tops-list-.... Sure, Bangladeshis aren’t as happy as Americans. But the average Bangladeshi lives an existence that would drive your typical child-free American to suicidal despair. What do they have?

[Nursie]

That's not really supportive of the idea that most joy comes from kids, or that a society without many would be joyless.

I'm not contesting that children can bring joy. I am contesting that they are the only source.

[edanm]

I mean, I think it should be more probable that most people would prefer living longer over not, considering the fact that, at any given moment, most people do prefer to continue living.

That in our society wanting immortality is somehow the "fringe" view (not to mention often depicted as evil) is pretty crazy IMO.