The Morality of Immortality

If part of the human civilization were ever to discover the secret to immortality, they would have to immediately stop breeding. Population growth is not an option for the immortal. On a planet where nobody dies, and new people are constantly being born, resources would be consumed at a frightening rate. A space-faring civilization, with the means to spread, could justify growth. However, as it follows an exponential curve, eventually there would be no room left.

The discovery of everlasting life would have every right to be celebrated. However, it means that the thread of the human life-cycle will have to be cut, permanently. Imagine everyone who is alive now would remain alive for the rest of time. There would be no more births; and because of that, no more einsteins, no more picassos, mozarts, gretzkys... The rest of us could practice and through pure elbow grease achieve a small measure of greatness. But that is no natural talent. Without new blood, art as we know it would wither. Perhaps die.

Life, which has for so long meant recycling and change, would become grey and erode into mere existence. Evolution, which is still at work today, would cease. The natural cycle of birth and death which has pulled us into shapes that let us fend off disease and predators would stop. Immunities would disappear. Epidemics would become, well, epidemic. of course, with advances in medicine etcetera, we could stave off the these threats. However, as our forms are left more and more in the evolutionary dust, our specie's existence would become fragile.

If you spend your life in a vat; if nanobots are the only thing keeping you from dying of the common flu; are you really living? You are certainly not thriving.

And finally, is immortality a medicinal epiphany or an evolutionary dead end?