>>521644
>Would we be fucked since no one ever dies
That's the thing, no one should be allowed to fuck.

>>521644
>If immortality had been attained during the start of human civilization
Have you got a mechanism for that with even a pretense of being plausible?

>>523207
Every 20-30 years humans get the urge to "sleep" where they enter a hibernation rock state for double their awake times.

Advances in medicine prolong the awake state but are unable to reduce the doubled sleep time instinct.

>>523224
Um... do still they sleep daily?

>>523207
During DNA replication there is no telomere shortening or something, who knows it's not a very good question

>>523263
>>521644
Alright I'm assuming a widespread Man From Earth scenario in which every human born has a small chance of being immortal, and there's no choice or science in the matter.

I guess it would take much longer to even out the eccentric parts of culture e.g. slavery, sacrifice etc due to the oldies' attachment to traditional practices, but at the same time knowledge would be preserved due to their memories going back millenia, and knowledge is very conducive to progress.

So the world would be less developed in some ways, and more developed in others.

We would all have an ultra-conservative idiology, but at the same time a lot more lessons from history would be learned and remembered.

Also institutions would be much more likely to be preserved, and they are the most important factor in the success of nations.

We'd probably get a good grasp early on of what's really important to civilization functioning e.g. infrastructure, trade networks, diplomacy, etc, and what's superficial.

Likely a lot of groups would have immortal leaders, who would essentially be dictators, but by building on their knowledge some would actually become the most competent leaders in history.

Obversely, there would inevitably be multiple anti-immortality movements arising independently from each other throughout history in response to the potential for eternal consolidation of power, or just centuries of incompitant rule, particularly in times of crisis and instability, who would kill all known immortals in government or just everywhere (maybe occasionally just remove or exile them).

Perhaps at one point a bunch of immortals might form a country of their own, which would have stringently anti-natalist principals, and mortals would likely be kept out.

>>523364
Also I'm assuming biological as opposed to physical immortality, so no aging but falling off a cliff still kills them.

>>523364
literally /thread

>>521644
We wouldn't be fucked necessarily.

It would depend on an effective governing body with good records keeping, but every few years, a portion of the population would be executed. They'd also probably see this as acceptable, though it would probably take some time before it became a big issue.

You are all immortal just not physically.

All attempts to be physically immortal fail.

>>524197
>Implying various regions across the world wouldn't run the spectrum from pure anti-natalism + free life to pure natalism + set life time.