Vortex
Member
Recently, in one of his latest interviews, Sam Parnia complained that he regularly receives proposals from the people who learned about the potential of the modern resuscitation techniques, as well as NDEs and ADEs (actual death experiences). So they want to be killed and revived, performing a reversible visit to the afterlife. Of course, Parnia refuses to accept such wild proposals…
But, in the near future, our resuscitation methods would be even better than now… So, I have a few questions to the forum members.
1) Would you approve an experiment during which a volunteer, acting under his/her fully informed consent, is killed and later revived in strictly controlled resuscitation unit conditions, to be able to undergone a spiritually transformative NDE/ADE and report it later?
Let’s assume that such experiments would be performed one day, and would be successful. In such a case…
2) Well, the main question: if we would be able to visit the afterlife realms and come back without dying irreversibly, would it mean that we can combine the benefits of physical and spiritual immortality? After all, the strongest objection to the search for the physical immortality is the need to give up all possibilities and potentials of the non-physical post-mortem existence – spiritual realms, reincarnation etc. But what if we can achieve all these possibilities and potentials without dying irreversibly? If our relatives’ spirits might be waiting for us beyond the veil of death, does it mean that we should go the residential living there – maybe we just should visit them from time to time? If we want to be reborn to a new life, giving up all the failures and suffering of the current one, does it mean that we have to die first – or we can be reborn without death, using the techniques of spiritually-induced biopsychosocial transformations, which we had only started to explore scientifically?
A pair of additional questions here…
3) If we would be able to live forever, would it mean that we should give people a right to die when they want – e.g., to commit a legally allowed suicide without any coercive interference from the society (of course, one is free to persuade them non-coercively not to do so)? After all, it would be simply cruel to force people to live forever if they do not want to. Maybe they want to go to the residential living in the non-physical realms, not just paying occasional visits there. Maybe they choose a classic post-mortem reincarnation. Maybe they just tired of their own potentially eternal physical life, and want to try something radically new beyond the limits of the physical. Anyway, both potential physical immortality and already possible spiritual eternity force us to think whether the common notion that suicide is totally unacceptable and wrong is a really justified one, don’t they?
4) If we would be able to achieve “living rebirths” – radical biopsychosocial transformations without irreversible deaths – would it be recognized as a possibility to start a renovated, “cleansed” social life for the people who were stigmatized and ostracized for their violent actions, whether the violent acts they committed were “illegal” (such as ones of robbers, rapists, or murderers) or “legal” (such as ones of tyrannical politicians, brutal policemen, or terror-supporting intelligence agents)? If they would themselves voluntarily agree to transform and reborn psychologically (and, subsequently, biologically) – should they be given a chance to transform and reborn socially as well? Should they be given a right and possibility of non-stigmatization and non-ostracism, the right to start a new life after they perform certain amends and restitutions and prove to others that they indeed changed in heart? After all, permanent social “blacklisting” would be an actual hell-on-earth for an immortal creature… well, it is already hell-on-earth for many mortal creatures today! Possibility to change oneself – and to earn the full reconciliation and reacceptance in society – should be a vitally important feature of the “immortalist” world. Wouldn’t it?
And the last question.
5) Do you have some other ideas on the future shape of the “immortalist” society – ones which I didn’t mention above? After all, we are actually moving to the one – massive acceptance of the afterlife and effective counter-measures against ageing may be not as far in the future as we usually think. We have to be prepared to the possible changes, and every proposal may be useful!
But, in the near future, our resuscitation methods would be even better than now… So, I have a few questions to the forum members.
1) Would you approve an experiment during which a volunteer, acting under his/her fully informed consent, is killed and later revived in strictly controlled resuscitation unit conditions, to be able to undergone a spiritually transformative NDE/ADE and report it later?
Let’s assume that such experiments would be performed one day, and would be successful. In such a case…
2) Well, the main question: if we would be able to visit the afterlife realms and come back without dying irreversibly, would it mean that we can combine the benefits of physical and spiritual immortality? After all, the strongest objection to the search for the physical immortality is the need to give up all possibilities and potentials of the non-physical post-mortem existence – spiritual realms, reincarnation etc. But what if we can achieve all these possibilities and potentials without dying irreversibly? If our relatives’ spirits might be waiting for us beyond the veil of death, does it mean that we should go the residential living there – maybe we just should visit them from time to time? If we want to be reborn to a new life, giving up all the failures and suffering of the current one, does it mean that we have to die first – or we can be reborn without death, using the techniques of spiritually-induced biopsychosocial transformations, which we had only started to explore scientifically?
A pair of additional questions here…
3) If we would be able to live forever, would it mean that we should give people a right to die when they want – e.g., to commit a legally allowed suicide without any coercive interference from the society (of course, one is free to persuade them non-coercively not to do so)? After all, it would be simply cruel to force people to live forever if they do not want to. Maybe they want to go to the residential living in the non-physical realms, not just paying occasional visits there. Maybe they choose a classic post-mortem reincarnation. Maybe they just tired of their own potentially eternal physical life, and want to try something radically new beyond the limits of the physical. Anyway, both potential physical immortality and already possible spiritual eternity force us to think whether the common notion that suicide is totally unacceptable and wrong is a really justified one, don’t they?
4) If we would be able to achieve “living rebirths” – radical biopsychosocial transformations without irreversible deaths – would it be recognized as a possibility to start a renovated, “cleansed” social life for the people who were stigmatized and ostracized for their violent actions, whether the violent acts they committed were “illegal” (such as ones of robbers, rapists, or murderers) or “legal” (such as ones of tyrannical politicians, brutal policemen, or terror-supporting intelligence agents)? If they would themselves voluntarily agree to transform and reborn psychologically (and, subsequently, biologically) – should they be given a chance to transform and reborn socially as well? Should they be given a right and possibility of non-stigmatization and non-ostracism, the right to start a new life after they perform certain amends and restitutions and prove to others that they indeed changed in heart? After all, permanent social “blacklisting” would be an actual hell-on-earth for an immortal creature… well, it is already hell-on-earth for many mortal creatures today! Possibility to change oneself – and to earn the full reconciliation and reacceptance in society – should be a vitally important feature of the “immortalist” world. Wouldn’t it?
And the last question.
5) Do you have some other ideas on the future shape of the “immortalist” society – ones which I didn’t mention above? After all, we are actually moving to the one – massive acceptance of the afterlife and effective counter-measures against ageing may be not as far in the future as we usually think. We have to be prepared to the possible changes, and every proposal may be useful!