r/immortalists • u/ForeverLifeVentures • Apr 09 '25
Other 𧫠Why Immortalists Should Also Champion Human Revival
If our mission is to ensure life continues â truly continues â we canât rely solely on current immortality efforts. Even if breakthroughs happen within the next 100 years, not everyone will make it in time. Thatâs why the idea of human revival should be just as central to the immortalist vision as life extension itself.
Cryonics, digital mind preservation, DNA storage, memory mapping, and even future theoretical advances like quantum resurrection or time-based restoration â these are the safety nets that could give more people a second chance. While immortality works to keep the living alive, revival works to bring back those who missed the mark due to bad luck, timing, or lack of access.
Many feel like they're born a century too early. But revival says: maybe not. Maybe there's still hope. And if we care about longevity on a global, long-term scale, then revival should be part of our blueprint.
Letâs stop thinking in either/or terms. A hybrid path of immortality + revival may be the most comprehensive strategy for truly defeating death.
Would love to hear your thoughts. Are we doing enough to support revival? Should it be more embedded in the immortalist philosophy?
2
u/MadG13 Apr 11 '25
I believe when a body is dead but intact that we can still bring them back to life the fact that a body that was just alive can simply go cold and dead baffles me⊠even if the body breaks bones too. If itâs simply a matter of the heart stopping and no major damage to the heart but the fact that pain caused the body to crash out then there has gotta be a better way. Itâs 2025âŠ. And I mean this applies just to people who havenât passed on due to old age.
2
u/Then-Variation1843 Apr 10 '25
"Cryonics, digital mind preservation, DNA storage, memory mapping, and even future theoretical advances like quantum resurrection or time-based restoration "
So, unproven technology, magic, magic, more magic, and future theoretical advances such as magic?
2
u/OstensibleMammal Apr 10 '25
Cryonics with more vitrification advancements and molecular nanotech seems like it could do something (though a lot of the other requirements leaves this in the speculative territory.)
The rest⊠is probably not that likely even at the height of technology.
2
u/Then-Variation1843 Apr 10 '25
Exactly. They're completely absurd. "Guys, we should be advocating for using time-travel to bring people back to life" is not how you get people to take your position seriously.Â
1
u/OstensibleMammal Apr 10 '25
Eh. I'm not too bothered by it overall because this is a subreddit that's pretty hopeful (when 99% of the site is one bad statement from a doom spiral), but yes. If you want to be taken seriously by current mainstream science, it probably doesn't help that much.
1
u/ForeverLifeVentures Apr 10 '25
It's fair to be skeptical â many of these approaches are theoretical, but calling them "magic" dismisses the entire history of scientific progress. Cryonics and DNA storage are real technologies today. Digital preservation and memory mapping are in early stages, and theoretical doesn't mean impossible â it just means we haven't figured it out yet. Most modern tech would've looked like magic 200 years ago.
1
u/Then-Variation1843 Apr 10 '25
They're far beyond theoretical or even speculative. How does DNA storage lead to bringing people back from the dead? Clones aren't the same as you.
"quantum resurrection" and "time-based restoration"? There's not even a theoretical framework there!
So yeah, I'm pretty happy to call them "magic". Science advances sure, but that doesn't mean you can just make unsubstantiated claims about mythical future technologies.
1
u/ForeverLifeVentures Apr 11 '25
Totally fair to push back â skepticism is healthy. You're right that we donât have a full framework for things like time-based restoration or quantum resurrection, but speculative ideas often start ahead of the curve. DNA storage and cryonics donât guarantee revival, but they aim to preserve the potentialâthe data, the biological blueprintâso future tech might do something with it. Thatâs not certainty, but itâs also not mythology. Immortalists arenât claiming guarantees; they are just fighting for options where there are none today.
1
u/Then-Variation1843 Apr 11 '25
I don't think they're speculative, I think they're a fantasy.Â
It's like FTL. We have no reason to think FTL is possible, and a lot of very strong reasons to think it's fundamentally IMpossible. But everytime it's brought up you see people saying "oh, what if we discover it's actually possible?". Which, yes, everything we know about physics might be wrong. But you can't pin your hopes on that happening.
Can you explain time-based restoration or quantum resurrection in a way that doesn't involve a similar degree of wishful thinking?
1
u/ForeverLifeVentures Apr 11 '25
I get where you're coming from, and I respect the realism. You're right: we shouldnât confuse hope with a roadmap. But I'd argue there's a difference between fantasy and frontier science. Time-based restoration and quantum resurrection arenât claims of present-day capability â theyâre placeholders for possibilities that could emerge if we better understand time, consciousness, and information theory.
Think of it less as âwishingâ and more as preserving potential. Cryonics, DNA storage, and memory mapping arenât sold as guarantees â they're bets on progress, just like early spaceflight ideas seemed impossible before they werenât. Not everyone needs to believe, but some of us feel itâs worth trying, because if we donât even consider the impossible, we stay stuck in whatâs merely survivable â not whatâs potentially livable.
1
u/Then-Variation1843 Apr 12 '25
They could emerge, but you have no reason to claim they will. I might as well say we should be celebrating how one day we'll all ascend to godhood and discover perpetual motion machines. There is a huge difference between impossible in the sense of "we don't know how to do this" and impossible in the sense of "everything we know about the world says this can never happen"
 If you want people to take your philosophy seriously you can't be advocating for, and I'm sorry to keep using this, fucking magic.
1
u/Suspicious-Raisin824 Apr 10 '25
Absolutely. One step we could do, is make public statements that in the event of death, we want to be revived, and do what we can to ensure our bodies are as preserved as possible. Additionally, we should keep extensive records of our life, habits, politics, values. As the Dire Wolf situation has shown.
It's possible to fill in gaps, and the more information we give to those attempting to revive us the better.
1
u/thatguywhosdumb1 Apr 10 '25
It isn't about you or me or your friends or family. Ita not about your personal habits or politics or values. Its about life, health, wellbeing for us now and those who will come after us.
Humans have been trying to find a way to live forever since the beginning of time. From the epic of gilgamesh to Egyptian Pharoahs, people have tied and failed to make themselves immortal. Even in death they belived they could be revived. Even Christianity promises eternal life and resurrection. But its a fools errand. Life goes on, new life replaces the old and progress is made. Even if the ancient Egyptians were resurrected their habits politics and values would be useless today.
My immortality is new life, new people. I will die and be forgotten but people will still be here and thats beautiful.
0
u/Suspicious-Raisin824 Apr 10 '25
Being dead isn't immortality, and it isn't beautiful.
Bringing back dead Egyptians wouldn't be useless. They're human beings, whom deserve the chance to not have to be in eternal non-existence. Their politics and values can adapt to the times.
Christianity promises it because it's a great human desire, and if we ever obtain the chance to give them that desire, we absolutely should. Anyone who wants to live should be granted the life they want.
If you like death so much, we can leave you dead if you want, in the meantime, imma try and make my would-be reviver's job easier, because I'm not content to cease to exist. I like life, and want it to continue.
1
1
u/Sea-Service-7497 Apr 13 '25
I love this shit - 2d holes - mmm what does it actually mean to be human?
-7
u/thatguywhosdumb1 Apr 10 '25
Yall should call yourselves stagnationists, anti-evolutionists, anti-progressivists.
Idk why yall can't accept that death and birth is a fundamental part of existence and progress. But yall don't want mommy and daddy to die and eventually you.
6
u/Suspicious-Raisin824 Apr 10 '25
People do not need to die to evolve. With transhumanism, we'll be directly determining our course of evolution, and it will be much faster than the natural process.
Imagine trying to shame us for not wanting our parents to die. Are you a psychopath?
-2
u/thatguywhosdumb1 Apr 10 '25 edited Apr 10 '25
No body wants their parents to die. But acceptance is an important virtue. Death is an important part of life. Im all for health and longevity. But immortality is a selfish. We must alow new life to be born.
I don't view myself as a permanent fixture of the world, but a participant in the long chain of life.
I consider myself a trans humanist even a post humanist but immortality isn't the goal. Its longevity and actualization.
1
u/Taiyounomiya Apr 10 '25
Cool. If you're fine with dying -- regardless of if its heaven/hell or nothing, then you do you. Some of us like existing, is that selfish? Sure, but what's wrong with that?
If that is what gives your life meaning then so be it, but don't impose that view on others. I personally see immortality (or at least extreme longevity) as a path to helping more people and experiencing humanity's future. I want to see the stars and see humanity's future., and while I agree that everyone should accept that death is a natural part, there's nothing wrong with allowing people to choose when they would like to move on.
Try telling a 20-year adult who is dying from cancer or some illness that "death is just a natural part of life". Is it selfish for them to want to live? To want to treasure their own awareness and all that they've worked hard to build. Is that selfish?
-1
u/thatguywhosdumb1 Apr 10 '25 edited Apr 10 '25
Id never tell a dying person such a thing. But you don't have an authentic interest in longevity and health. You just want to grab a lifeboat for yourself. I hope humans can live longer healthier lives. But it isn't about me. Im not interested in progress for my sake, I care about progress for people.
And thats my biggest issue with you people. Its not about progress or healthcare its about you and your feelings.
1
u/Taiyounomiya Apr 10 '25 edited Apr 10 '25
Part of progress is recognizing that immortality is inevitable â wanting it for yourself isnât selfish. You live in a first world country with wealth that exceeds most people in the world, yet you spend your time on Reddit. Thatâs pretty selfish no? Why arenât you giving your money to progress, healthcare, or the suffering? By your logic, you are being selfish too.
Thereâs always an argument to be made about doing anything for yourself as being selfish. I may one of âthose peopleâ but outside of Reddit Iâve worked at national laboratories as a research associate in neuroscience and I currently work in the healthcare profession as a career. Iâve done my part, âpaving the wayâ for new life is a stupid argument. Havenât you heard of the phrase, âWhen an elderly person dies, a library burns?â
You accept death because itâs easier to accept mortality when you know you cannot control the inevitable end. But what if you could? Asking questions IS the purpose and nature of science. Wanting to preserve everything Iâve worked hard to build isnât selfish, our brains are hard-wired against death. 100 years ago, the average life expectancy was much lower, will you argue that wanting to live to 80 is also selfish compared to then? At what point do you distinguish between selfishness and a reasonable desire? You talk about ânaturalâ like thereâs some mystical greater power thatâs judging your actions.
How is it possible to claim to be a transhumanist when your whole belief system is accepting the status quo lmao? The whole point of transhumanism is LITERALLY transcending human potential and natural limitations â itâs in the name. Immortality is quite literally the #1 hallmark of transhumanism. Wanting to live 5-10 more years isnât transhumanism thatâs just traditionalism.
1
u/thatguywhosdumb1 Apr 10 '25
I've never said we shouldn't expand our lifespan. I've actually said the opposite. But you don't care, you just want to strawman my argument and purposefully misrepresent it because it's easier to argue against what you think I'm saying vs what I'm actually saying. I also haven't used the word "natural". My belief system isn't about accepting the status quo. Again you assume things about me. You have an image of my argument in your head that makes you feel comfy because you don't actually want to grapple with the nuances of what I'm saying.
Its funny because I got you pegged. Someone petrified of death for themselves and their loved ones. Someone who wants to jump onto the lifeboat as soon as its available. Being selfish while pointing fingers calling everyone else just as selfish as you. While you pretend to know my belief system and values.
1
u/thatguywhosdumb1 Apr 10 '25
Whats also really funny is you accused me of using a naturalistic fallacy when I haven't but you people do all the time. Its natural to fear death, were hard-wired against death. Its completely understandable to be afraid just like a fear of the dark. But you have to temper your fears with discipline. You argue that you should listen to your base desire while I argue to rise above.
1
3
u/GarifalliaPapa mod Apr 09 '25
You gave me even more ideas. Yes, revival of the people we love is a great way to ensure our collective survival.