Another immortality question

[Tom Flapwell]

Imagine having the following two choices:

(1) You never age, but you are still just as mortal in other ways.

(2) You are invulnerable to violence and most illnesses, but you age at a typical rate and eventually will die from a petered-out vital organ.

Your choice?

[Muninn]

I would choose the second. A very ideal condition yet still in natural life limits.

[Fritz]

2. I want to age.

[nickspoon]

I'd say the first. That way, I would eventually die (by probability), and could end my life myself if immortality became a burden. But I would die during my youth, rather than withering away.

[Dr. Doog]

I don't like violence. D:

(2)

[Tabris_The_17th]

I think I'd go with number 2 as well. There's a short story I read in my science fiction course two semesters ago where a man comes across an imortal man who has been roaming the Earth for centuries. The whole point of the story is how with eternal life comes utter lonliness. If your society realized you weren't aging and all, imagine what could happen. People would probably want to experiment on you or worse (we all know how humans react to things that are "different"). Therefore, you couldn't stay in one spot for very long or you'd be at risk of giving yourself away. That never gives you a chance to get close to anyone.

I wish I could remember the author and the title, but it escapes me. We read A LOT in that class. So I guess based on a similar manner of thinking, I'd go for #2.

[Comrade K]

Number 2 for sure.

When you say violence, do you mean like trauma? If so, that would be excellent. Run down the streets of North Korea screaming that Kim Jong Il is Evil, go sky diving minus parachute, take the largest four-wheeler jump ever, be a friggin' super hero. Man, it would be pure awesomeness.

[Angstwolf]

2, for Tabris's reasons.

Also for Comrade K's reasons, if that is in fact how you meant the invulnerability to violence part.