X-Message-Number: 24942
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:44:40 -0400
From: "Jonathan Hinek" <>
Subject: Re: Society of Immortals
References: <>

Thomas Donaldson <> wrote on 10/29/2004, 5:00 AM:

 > More for Mike Price:
 > In a brief piece for Cryonet I recently argued that very long lifespans
 > would affect us in many ways even without any special biological or
 > physical redesign. I am agreeing with Mike Perry on this issue; however
 > I would argue further, by saying that a virtually immortal lifespan
 > will give anyone so endowed with a character that wouldn't even think
 > of hurting others or being "evil" toward them. [...]
 > If anyone on Cryonet is interested, here are a few more changes, told
 > about as briefly as I can. We may lose our interest in history, since
 > after all we would have ourselves experienced the events history
 > tells about. A good deal of literature deals with love and death;
 > we'd hardly lose interest in love, but most of that literature (yes,
 > Shakespeare and others such included) would be forgotten.

I wonder about this. It seems to me that we remain intrigued by diseases 
and tragedies that we ourselves have not, and likely will not, face. 
People who have never been to war indulge in action flicks about desert 
storm. We read and learn about real and fictional characters that 
overcome or fall victim to diseases (polio, measles, herpes) which are 
hardly a threat in the modern age of advanced societies. We're even 
entertained by sci-fi fantasies about beasts and monsters we need never 
experience. If anything, I wonder if rare deaths would make the topic 
even more of a curiosity. Some may even romanticize it as part of a 
bygone era, as we do Knights in shining armor or native american 
warriors, despite the fact that most of us would never choose to live 
life in that backward time. They may be impressed by beings who were 
willing to give their lives for a cause, or they may be appalled by it, 
but I can't imagine they'd simply ignore such stories.

 > One way or
 > another, we may take on many lovers, not all at the same time but
 > sequentially. After all, two independent people following their
 > independent lives may have paths which match for a while but not
 > forever. Nor for that matter would we "fall in love" any more, so that
 > the term "lovers" would cease to be exactly correct. We wouldn't want
 > to produce children in such unions, of course. Production of children,
 > ie. new human beings, may turn out to bear little relation to any
 > sexual unions at all --- when they are produced, which would be
 > quite rare. Groups of people (though just from looking at evolution
 > 2 seems the most likely size of such a group) would combine to
 > produce a child, not just from their genes but their ideas about
 > what a new human being should be like. These groups would occur
 > independently of any pairing for sex.

This is an interesting thought. Do you think that we would 
surpass/overcome ideas of commitment or loyalty? Would all dissolved 
relationships be amiable? Would ideals about trust differ as well?

 > AS readers might guess, that's what TALES OF SKASTOWE is about: my
 > attempt to see what life will be like for us as immortals.
 >                     Best wishes and long long life for all,
 >                           Thomas Donaldson

Interesting project.

Jonathan Hinek
Eschaton Outlook

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24942