The author, John Marek, is a writer and CEO of the Anson Economic Development Partnership.
Mary Shelly’s novel “Frankenstein” is frequently cited as one of the earliest examples of modern horror fiction, but contemporary readers may be missing a significant aspect of her work. When the book was first published in 1818, the idea of reanimating human flesh with an electrical current was not just a fanciful plot device. Legitimate scholars at mainstream universities believed it might be possible. As such, “Frankenstein” is not just a tale about the dangers of unchecked scientific experimentation but a critique of a particular type of experiment that was being actively conducted at the time.
In that way, Shelley’s novel has a lot in common with contemporary shows like “Black Mirror,” which offers an anthology of cautionary tales about the unanticipated consequences of technology, especially artificial intelligence (AI). Several “Black Mirror” episodes take place in the near future, where a device can capture human thought and memory and digitally copy them. These stories tackle the weighty subjects of what constitutes thought, intelligence and consciousness and the consequences of what is effectively digital immortality. Mostly, these episodes portray the dangers and downsides of such a technology, but one, San Junipero, strikes a more positive note and goes so far as to suggest such a digital afterlife might be the “heaven” various world religions speak of. While that is a stretch, Elon Musk’s Neuralink Corporation is currently working on building EXACTLY the device shown in “Black Mirror.”
Following a different track, scientist Ray Kurzweil has predicted that by the year 2030, humans will be able to achieve physical immortality. Before you write him off as a crackpot, it’s important to know that Kurzweil is a globally-renowned scientist whose work has been recognized and awarded by many prominent organizations. He believes that nano-robots will be able to work inside the body, repairing damage and slowing or even reversing aging at the cellular level. Whatever you think about the feasibility or morality of either of these ideas, one thing is for certain: They would be expensive. What would happen to a society where the one-percenters could live forever and the rest of us couldn’t?
The concept of immortality has captured the imagination of humankind for centuries. From Greek myths of the gods and goddesses who lived forever to modern-day stories of vampires and superheroes, the idea of living forever has been a recurring theme in human storytelling. However, the pursuit of physical immortality raises some troubling ethical questions, particularly concerning the impact on society and the individual.
One of the primary concerns with the pursuit of immortality is the potential impact on social and environmental sustainability. If people were to live forever, the already pressing issue of overpopulation would become even more acute. Furthermore, if people could live forever, they would likely become more risk-averse, as the consequences of their actions could have infinite implications. This could lead to stagnating innovation and progress as people become increasingly unwilling to take risks or challenge the status quo.
Another ethical concern with the pursuit of immortality is the potential impact on the individual. If people were to live forever, or even for a time in multiples of the typical human lifespan, they would no longer have the same sense of urgency to accomplish their goals and dreams, leading to a lack of motivation and purpose in life. Moreover, living forever could cause people to become bored and jaded, as they have experienced everything life offers.
In addition to these ethical concerns, there are also practical considerations that make the pursuit of immortality problematic. For example, while some scientists have speculated that something approaching immortality could be achieved through genetic engineering or other technological advancements, the reality is that such developments are likely to be many decades, if not centuries, away. Moreover, even if immortality were possible, it is not clear that it would be desirable or even safe. For example, immortal beings might be more susceptible to mental illness or physical degeneration over time.
Immortality has always raised serious ethical questions about its impact on society and the individual. From Frankenstein to Dracula to The Walking Dead, pop culture is filled with cautionary tales about the desire to physically live forever. While that idea may be appealing to some, the reality is that it is not a sustainable or desirable goal. Instead, we should focus on improving the quality of life for all individuals and ensuring that everyone has access to the resources and opportunities they need to live a fulfilling and meaningful life. Only by addressing these more pressing concerns can we hope to create a society in which everyone has the chance to thrive and flourish.