Immortality
By grandpa_lash
@grandpa_lash (5225)
Australia
April 1, 2009 9:49pm CST
I am working on the plot for a possible Sci-fi book, and I have a question to ask Mylotters.
The premise is that a treatment has been developed that rejuvenates people to whatever age they choose, and which can be repeated ad infinitum as they again reach an older age. However, it has two major drawbacks.
First, and probably not so major, within three to four weeks of starting the first treatment cycle, subjects become permanently infertile.
Second, and much more drastic, about 80% of treatments fail cataclysmically, with death occurring within that same three to four weeks, and there are no ways to discover in advance whether you are going to be one of the 4/5 who will die.
So, your chances are 1 in 5 of attaining immortality, or at the very least, major longevity. Would you accept the risk and take the treatment?
Lash
6 people like this
10 responses
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
2 Apr 09
This certainly takes "survival of the fittest" off on an entirely different tangent! If I had already raised a family and was financially secure, then I'd probably seriously consider taking the risk, yes. You're talking about having to be over 60 here, so why would I not? My overall attitude towards life in general and the status of those I cared for would play a major part in my decision also. Living forever for the sake of it when all around you that are meaningful are constantly passing on doesn't sound very rewarding. We're ultimately talking the eventual decimation of the human race here too, so it's a very interesting premise!
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
2 Apr 09
I was just in the shower and realized I misrepresented myself with the last sentence above..... What I meant to say was that it's the cycle of life as we know it that would be decimated, so the human race from that aspect. 
lol. (I've had a shower AND coffee now, so I can feel lucidity creeping in at last!)
lol. (I've had a shower AND coffee now, so I can feel lucidity creeping in at last!)
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
2 Apr 09
There is your first problem. If you wait until you are over 60 then I think your body would be too old to enjoy living forever. I am only 52 and I am in pain and sick and wondering about living for the next 10 years.
I would not want to live forever as I am right now.
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
2 Apr 09
Tsk tsk. You didn't read the opening post properly. It is a rejuvenation treatment that can be repeated as infinitum as needed. So you wouldn't have to live forever in pain.
Lash
1 person likes this
@miamilady (4910)
• United States
2 Apr 09
First off, I don't think I'd want to achieve immorality at all. But, if I DID want that I don't think I'd take the risk if those were the odds. The odds would have to be a lot better.
I thought you were going to ask what age you would want to go back to and stay at.
@miamilady (4910)
• United States
2 Apr 09
I really need to start proofreading before I send the stuff I type. I forgot that "t" and probably some other stuff too!
@miamilady (4910)
• United States
4 Apr 09
I kind of laughed at the typo when I saw the word "immorality" pop up.
I do think that would be a good additional theme to your book.
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
3 Apr 09
This is excellent, I like the addition of this. Some would say we are ALREADY a giant social experiment anyway, and when you die to find out how meaningless it really was. I suppose too that's why it would need the side effect of being infertile, can you imagine? Birth control would have to fail a few times at least, it does under normal circumstances.
Lash, if you write this I want to know about it, not 'stumble' on it 4 years after you wrote it just because 'everybody' is reading it lol.
@sunshinegirl1 (436)
• United States
3 Apr 09
I would love to be young but I wouldn't want to take the risk of dying. I love children so infertility so that would be a hard decidion to make there Sounds like a good story plot.
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
3 Apr 09
In my answer to several other responses, I point out something I should have had in the original post. That is, that the treatment is not made available until you have reached at least 60, so you have your children the first time round, and after that you are sterile and can't have any more. Which in this scenario would be a good thing, or the world's population would become totally impossible to control.
Lash
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
2 Apr 09
Perhaps I should have included in the opening post the fact that the treatment would be unavailable to anyone under 60.
Lash
@JenInTN (27514)
• United States
3 Apr 09
Oh ok...over 60...well..I would think that if I was with someone my age..no..I wouldn't..but if there were someone younger I would fancy...hmmm. If I were having a hard time adjusting..or my children had left me to myself...these possibilities are great my friend.
@AngryKittyMSV (4317)
• United States
2 Apr 09
Nope, that sort of thing wouldn't be for me. I am OK with getting older, and I couldn't imagine life without my kids. I prefer to live my life as is, and hopefully when it's my time to go I will have lived a full life already. I wouldn't risk my life to achieve immortality, I think at some point I'd like to be able to die in peace and see what exactly is on the other side.
There are many people who do value youth and "beauty" above all else, so I'm sure if such a thing really existed there's still be plenty of takers - especially in Hollywood!
I think you've got a good premise for your story to be built around, and it is probably something I would enjoy reading. I like sci/fi stories a lot.
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
3 Apr 09
I think that I'd want the immortality just for the sake of immortality - getting a chance at a longer life without having to see what the other side is like yet. All we know is what we know, here. It could be WONDERFUL, but then again it could be the pits, ya know?
It would be more for the fact that younger bodies work much better, they are stronger, faster, healthier, heal faster, etc. Also, most people don't go senile in their 20s, and don't have the host of health problems that start showing up when you hit 60.
I'm sure people would definitely ACCUSE me of that youth and beauty thing but since I have experienced the shift to age and treachery, I would take that with a grain of salt 
1 person likes this
@AngryKittyMSV (4317)
• United States
2 Apr 09
OK, missed the part about having the kids first, but I still wouldn't do it. That's just me though, I do believe there are many who would love such an opportunity and would be willing to risk all to get it.
@geogirl85 (116)
• United States
2 Apr 09
Right now, I definitely would not take it. I'd rather live out this life first, then when I get older, after having children, etc., then I might try it. That way, even if it fails, I still had a life. Actually, after living a full life, I would definitely try it, kind of a second chance to live life all over again.
One question to consider: If the treatment works once (ie one of the one in five), then does that guarantee that it will work the next time you try it?
Sounds like a decent premise to me, good luck with it!
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
2 Apr 09
Yes, once it works for someone, it works again. Also, I assumed that only older people would take the risk. It's one thing to risk maybe 10 years of increasingly unpleasant life, quite another to risk 40 years or whatever of potentially good life. In fact, one part of the premise is that the treatment would be unavailable for anyone under 60 unless there were major medical problems to deal with.
Lash
1 person likes this
@prashanthalva (2272)
• India
12 Jul 09
You Do seem Concerned Truly About Living Longer And Helping People Over 60 Live Longer .... This World Is A Creation of Some Unknown Power ............ You Can Never Live Longer ........ If At all anyone Lives Longer By Taking your Medicine .......... He Was Destined to Live longer that way ........... When your Time Comes You will Be Picked up ....... Enjoy Lotting till Then ..........
@DoriLentrich (1016)
• United States
2 Apr 09
Personally, no. But that doesn't matter for a plot treatment. Most people would believe that while they (the reader) would not take that risk, others would. The chances are too high. However, the likelihood is strong that only those who are already aged or in some kind of terminal situation would take the risks posed by the procedure. People with nothing to lose can only gain in this type of scenario.
The personality of a person willing to take the chance would make a wonderful topic in your book. What kind of person will endanger their own existence for immortality?
Books are wonderful things, and this is a good story idea. Don't let what people would do in the real world dissuade you from it. Suspension of disbelief goes a long way in this type of novel and remember it only takes one person to take the chance for you plot to have basis.
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
2 Apr 09
"However, the likelihood is strong that only those who are already aged or in some kind of terminal situation would take the risks posed by the procedure."
Yes, and I should have added this bit to the original post, although I have included it in a couple of responses. You cannot be get the treatment until you are over 60.
Lash
@kapil_poundarik (960)
• India
2 Apr 09
well i believe in miracles and i would chose the one which has some hope , that is i would go 4 the treatment , also i don't fear to die becaz some day or the other every one has to die . now u may be thinking that if i dont fear dying then y do i go 4 treatment its becauz i dont want to leave my family alone without me , so actually im living 4 them.
@krajibg (11922)
• Guwahati, India
2 Apr 09
Oh greatttttttttttttttt. Go on with this theme only. It would be a fantastic one and please don forget to mail me one complimentary copy.
Al the nesr for the novel
