Speak for yourself!

@Sealybobo I wonder if what he meant is how would we make any meaning out of our own lives if life were eternal, not any cosmic meaning, or point. I ask the same thing. It is because life is finite that we are able to give it value and meaning.

@Sealybobo Many religious people I know seem to think this life is about trials and sorry in order to prove oneself. Then receive happiness as a reward in the hereafter

Antinatalist, so that's what I am...thank you. I decided to never get married and have children because, among other things, I thought it was immoral to bring children into such a terrible world. But I didn't know there was a NAME, a school of thought, for it...wow...now I can describe myself as an 'agnostic neo-deist antinatalist.' Cool. I'm always looking to upgrade and/or update my label, so I'm grateful.

Some medical researchers believe we can live almost forever. Some organs, such as our liver, show no signs of aging, and if you donate a piece to someone in need, it rejuvenates.

The hydra may live forever; scientists haven't found it ages at all. [en.m.wikipedia.org]

Yes, it really is a no-brainer. But, I think the question was asked to make a point. People think they want to live forever without really considering what that would mean. If there is no death, how can there possibly be new life?

@Joanne See my comment.

I don't see it as a no-brainer. I suspect a good number of people responding to the question haven't yet faced their own deaths. On my death bed I'm pretty sure I would choose not to die. Life is amazing. Life is all we know. Death is pretty horrifying, and as beings most of us generally don't go around wanting to do it. When it comes, pretty much everyone is sad about it. None of your friends or family want you to do it. So why do it when you don't have to?

If all I have to sacrifice for it is no more births....sold!

@EdEarl call me in 2000 years then.

@Joanne if someone wants to make a point, make it, why ask then "which one would you choose"?

@Shawno1972 wait til you're 90 and then talk.

@Mofo1953 To encourage the conversation.

@Mofo1953 90 isn't far off for me.

@Mofo1953 Because I think sometimes questions are asked in order to get people to think about the implications of their choice. And, when I listened to the pod cast, I felt the question was asked in order to make a broader point--that death is necessary in order for there to be new life. Perhaps other people had a different take.

Also, everyone on the pod cast chose option two. I was curious as to how many might choose option one.

@EdEarl good, so 2000 years will pass swiftly.

@EdEarl exactly.

@Joanne what podcast?, there was no link on the original post, still not there btw, I replied to that and I still believe it's a ridiculous dilemma. I equate it to choosing between is the earth flat or is it a cube?

@Mofo1953 . I will have to see if I can find the podcast.

@Joanne I AM truly sorry for thinking this, but what you just said is ridiculous. What's so great about 'new life?' Are you going to enjoy the agony of growing weak, frail, and slowly dying? Is getting elderly and a burden on others your idea of fun? Don't you feel just a little guilty bringing naive youngsters into this meat grinder of an existence. THEY didn't choose this for themselves and if they're anything like me they would have chosen non-existence over this raw deal.
Don't get me wrong: there's a lot about my life I enjoy very much, but given a choice I would've said, 'No thanks!'

@Mofo1953 "Wait until you're 90 and then talk."

How would you know what 90 feels like? Silly.

@Shawno1972 my mom is 90, she is frail, legally blind due to cataracts, hard of hearing, has dementia, needs a caregiver to do the minor things that she used to do just 10 years ago, is depressed all the time and doesn't recognize any of their kids. That's how I know.

Well, yeah, if being alive is a miserable experience, I get it. I rather thought that went without saying. My grandmother died at 93 a couple years back with most of the conditions you listed and a few others to boot.

My point is, assuming they're not frail, legally blind, hard of hearing, suffering from dementia, and constantly in need of care, most people would rather not die, even when it's staring them in the face.

Some people who are 90 are doing just fine.

@Shawno1972 your body naturally decays, they may be ok but with an aching body, that's inescapable, heck I'm 66 and very healthy but have a knee that hurts, backpain, etc. Living forever is for the young, i pass.

@Mofo1953 As I said in my primary comment on this post, one of the qualifiers for choosing item #1 would be remaining in the health I am today. Not me at the 90 I will be someday.

@Shawno1972 and as I said in my comment, pipe dreams basically.

@Mofo1953 Of course it is. The whole question is ridiculous. We're all just playing along, here.

@Sealybobo what? What dots are you connecting?

@Sealybobo that doesn't make one suicidal, that makes one accepting of realities. The only way things change is by certain things ending so others can begin. With no birth/death our society will stagnate and life itself will be uninspiring, dull, and monotonous.

And, this also does not make sense. Why the need for kids if you live forever? And, how would kids in any way be special if they were just another immortal being added to the mix?

Where would there be any joy in watching them learn--and even fail so they can try, try again? One of the greatest joys in life is watching a determined child keep at it: learning to turn over, to crawl, to walk, ride a bike etc. If they are basically born little gods, there could be none of this.

I don't think so. I guess because I hope it caused certain people to think about their ideas of an eternal afterlife. In an afterlife, you live forever, but no children are ever born. It was just presenting it in a form that makes one think. Would you really want to live forever, if no children will ever again be born?

@Joanne For my part, yes. And since there is nothing stated in the above scenario that I have to be living that eternal life in a religious heaven, Christian or otherwise, then why not live forever and have the time one needs to develop, and learn, and establish solid relationships with other adults that can be fulfilling without the constant interruptions of children? I have never found child-rearing to be that rewarding, if my relatives who have children are any example. Most parents I know are miserable and can't wait for their rug rats to grow up and get out of their house. LOL! Just saying...

@Joanne Sure, of course, why not? When I think of living forever (to humor your question if I may) I think of

1. here on Earth
2. about 35-40 year old
3. invulnerable, best of health
4. limitless amount of money
5. extreme good looks
6. no hidden gimmicky downside.
   (Which is basically what Jehovah Witnesses believe. Too bad I don't.)
   The reason for children is to replace dying adults. If the adult population stabilized, why have to go through the growing-up-and-maturation process over and over again?
   And since everybody has it made in the shade, everybody'd be ecstatically happy! Sounds good to me!
   Like I said, silly question.

@Storm1752 I was going to say, become JW. That’s their deal. Just don’t knock on my door clutching The Watchtower on a Sunday morning.

@Sealybobo Sign me up!

@Sealybobo I want to see year 5,000

That WOULD be cool!

I would not want to live forever either on this earth or in some afterlife.

@Sealybobo Really? Why?

I don't think the proposition was that people could have children but were prevented from doing so, it was that once an eternal life body was attained, it would not be possible to procreate.

It doesn't really qualify as a false dilemma if it's presented as a hypothetical "what if" scenario for the OP's purposes. We know option #1 is currently not possible.

@Shawno1972 Fine, then its a hypothetical false dilema, interesting food for thought, but not much else.

@Shawno1972, @Joanne I took it VERY differntly, as if YOU chose to be immortal, NO ONE could have children.
"Which would you choose?

1. Eternal life, starting now, with the caveat that no children can ever again be born."

No children does not limit it to my children.

@Davesnothere Which is why I didn't argue with your statement about it being "unethical." There are too many qualifiers missing from the question, but taken the way you took it, it would definitely be unethical.

Even though you don't want children yourself, can you imagine an existence where the same people existed forever with no fresh infusion of humans.

@Joanne Certainly. I only interact with a very, very small subset of the ones alive today anyway. It might take me a good while to meet all 7 billion of them. I don't think I'll need any new ones. Several things are missing from the question - does everyone else also get to live forever? Or am I to be the last man on earth? That might be even more awesome...hard to say.

@Joanne No way you could know everyone, you will forget some after meeting a million or billion. Further, people change.

@EdEarl Totally. I can't imagine myself ever saying, "Geez, I'm really tired of all 7 billion of these idiots."