Imagine that you could be immortal by having your aging stoppped at whatever point you wished and being made immune to all disease. But if you did, you'd also have to be sterilized because eternally youthful people would probably make too many babies and overpopulate the planet. Would you choose sterile immortality or continue as a mortal with the ability to reproduce? Personally, I'd choose immortality, which I think would largely defeat the purpose of reproduction. What would you do?
2006-07-26 05:03:49 · 23 answers · asked by Subconsciousless 7 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
Besides the fact that you could still be killed by other means, thus ending your immortality and that which makes you you on this earth forever because you have had no children, by choosing immortality and relinquishing children you have just given away the preciousness of seeing before your eyes another human grow from conception to a fully functional individual. No matter who they end up being, you will miss the joy, laughter, sadness, and pain that you feel as they feel, that you share together or apart. You will miss seeing the imagination and wonder, being able to give comfort, and the beauty of the innocence that you once had and wish they could keep forever. By keeping immortality you would continue to gather the jading life hands out and by not having children you would miss a great deal of of the greatest part of life.
2006-07-26 07:05:12 · answer #1 · answered by rodneycrater 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Well, I would choose the immortality on the surface. I would want to see about the money possibilites with being immortal, since I wouldn't want to slave away at a crappy job (not the one I have now, it isn't crappy!) for the rest of my life, you know? I mean, part of the point of being immortal is so that you can experience everything, not just merely "exist".
2006-07-26 05:06:50 · answer #2 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have you performed any castlevanias? Well Dracula countinued to be reborn in one more frame. He associated his soul to castlevania his fort and at any time when he died he might be reborn right into a knew hosts frame, I dont suppose this facet is defined mutch. In aria of sorrow castlevania used to be sealed right into a sun eclipse so the fort used to be seperated from his soul and dracula used to be killed endlessly. However any one born at the day of his demise used to be born with considered one of his powers and would be a capabilities for the brand new darkish lord. So It turns out that each time he died a brand new host might be born and move the powers down after which on the time of rebirth the host might one way or the other get to castlevania. If something that is much more likely than re-incarnation or immortality. You will have to observe that castlevania is the person who stored the vampire topic and has been round given that the nes and so they possess dracula? So yeah from that factor on vampires can use blood magic, demon magic, metamorphisis or even have demonic varieties.
2016-08-28 17:37:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would hands down choose immortality. But if you were to get hurt or something you could still die by physical harm. That would be nice because then you'd still have the thrill of living.
2006-07-26 05:06:18 · answer #4 · answered by Phaylynn 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we are reborn through our children. we become immortal through our ancestors. our children make our lives fulfilled. what shall i do with an eternal life with a wish that will never be fulfilled?
i will always prefer to have my children than to become immortal. i am so happy that i am born as a women, i've got the opportunity to feel a baby grow up in my own body. i will not spoil it! i will have my own child, of my own flesh and blood. i wish i knew english a little more to express my feelings properly.
2006-07-26 05:18:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
How long are you prepared to really live?
Is this all you think there is? Maybe it is, but maybe it's not.
I wouldn't want to be immortal. You could still be murdered, and then you leave nothing behind except a young carcass, no children or legacy.
Sounds boring.
2006-07-26 05:11:15 · answer #6 · answered by alwaysbombed 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My choice was already made, I have a son and he is way better than immortality for me. If I could do it over again I wouldn't change a thing.
2006-07-26 05:05:43 · answer #7 · answered by dmc81076 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's miserable being immortal and let the others die as you live forever. Won't you become lonely? Duh. So freaky. Even Christ came to earth for 33yrs before He ascended to heaven. People who lived in the Old Testament had longer life-spans, few centuries old. They had great lives but as each generation sins, our lives are shorten. Anyway, I rather have more children to keep my legacy alive than living indefinately and without any signs of aging.
2006-07-26 05:16:07 · answer #8 · answered by spa_wellness 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Immortality no question about it......i dont want childern never did since 10th grade when we went to a chilbirth class with one of the girl who got pregnanent and some lady started having her baby so we took her to the hospital and wow!!! she was screaming 'kill me" just let be out of this pain.....it sounded like it hurts and beside its like a giant water melon comin out of you...... so i definatly dont want babies so i might as well live forever @ the age of 21..;)
2006-07-26 05:12:04 · answer #9 · answered by Love Exists? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Immortality. No question about it. I don't want kids anyway. I would like, though, to have the option to die. I don't want to live forever. It would get boring.
2006-07-26 05:06:04 · answer #10 · answered by I Know Nuttin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋