this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
13 points (68.6% liked)
Asklemmy
47150 readers
449 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure I understand the question. If the premise is that you become physically incapable of doing any action that introduces greater risk than some alternative, which isn't even a guarantee of "immortality" as described, then it's basically a life not lived at all. The safest option would always be to go nowhere, do nothing, speak to no one.
Imagine living life as if everything was covered in California Prop 65 labels saying "This action can expose you to risks which are known to future you to cause premature demise or other bodily harm." It sounds awful, I'd never take that bet.
It doesn't just affect decisions you make, but also all things around you. Decisions others make and events that happen. Everything is acting on probability, you just only exist in the universes where.. well.. you exist.
The shitty thing is in this scenario you don't get to choose the option to be immortal or not, you just are. You get as much choice in the matter as how much choice you have in being born, that is to say, none.
It sounds like you have no agency either way, then, which still sounds like a bad deal to me. I'd rather die at 40 living a life of my choosing than live to 400 with essentially no free will.
The questions wasn't if it was a bad deal, you are already immortal. I was just trying to get some ideas on what could be done to make ones life better given these parameters.
Ending it as quickly and painlessly as possible then, I guess. I stick by the opinion that a life without agency and with no means to obtain it isn't really living at all.
Not an option unfortunately... Immortal is immortal :(