So, let's discuss immortality, shall we? · 3:27am Mar 31st, 2014
There are three things man has yearned to do since the dawn of time:
A) Fly
B) Destroy the Sun
C) Become immortal
The first one we've managed to accomplish, and the second shall be our final middle finger to the aliens that will one day invade and devour us all, but the third is the topic of conversation today. The idea of someone living forever has been one of the most long-standing tropes in fiction. dating all the way back to the most ancient of known mythologies. And even in the modern world, we keep searching for ways to extend our life spans through medicine, drugs, and machinery. Because let's face it, the idea sounds freaking awesome, right? You get to go around the world, watching as the ages pass and things change. You have all the time in the world to learn that new language, or finally fix that loose floorboard like you've always said you will. And you can live without consequences, because nothing can kill you.
Now how does this enter MLP? Well, last season, a pony grew a pair of wings. Twilight is now an Alicorn, and since two of the Alicorns we know of are over a thousand years old and are frequently headcanon'd as being immortal, then she must be an immortal as well. There's a genre of stories about Twilight facing the grim realities of outliving her friends, from blaming Celestia to Celestia blaming herself to two stories about how Celestia is a monster for not making every single sapient being on the planet immortal when she clearly could. All of this has kind of sparked a classic discussion point: if you are offered immortality, should you take it? Is making everyone live forever a good thing?
First, we need to clarify the immortality we're talking about. This is your classic demigod king of eternity. You still get hungry and tired, you still need to bathe, you still get winded if you run real fast, etc. But at the same time, you don't age, any wounds you suffer regenerate in a very short amount of time and are always non-lethal, and you have limitless storage capacity in your brain. Would this kind of immortality be a good thing?
My answer: NO.
Let's just ditch the "I'll outlive my friends" argument as irrelevant. You run that risk right now and I'm pretty sure none of you are immortal. The fact is that people die, there is nothing you can do to prevent that, and you are going to outlive at least some of your friends and family as it stands. Pretty much everyone here has outlived at least one person they've cared about; heck, you'll probably all outlive me. Being immortal just means you'll outlive them all, and then you'll make new ones that you'll outlive. That doesn't diminish the significance of the friendship, nor does it erase all of the good times you'll have.
And that's assuming you get that opportunity, because people will eventually notice someone who simply has not aged for all the years they've known them. This is doubly true if you're not rich enough to pass off plastic surgery as an excuse, and even that only works so long. Eventually you will have to pack up and leave. And then what? You have to keep moving farther and farther out, going to new lands and adopting new cultures in order to avoid being discovered as immortal and causing a media circus. And if you decide to indulge in the media, those same folks will just as quickly tear you apart in a bid to satisfy the viewership and make themselves feel better.
And that's not figuring in finances. Just because you're immortal doesn't mean you're going to be rich or independently wealthy. You could possibly sell off that old watch or some other item as an antique, but you would need one that will be in demand a century or so from now. That's a lot of time in between. And if you really get down on your luck, you might find yourself without food for months. A mortal person would have starved to death by then, but you'll keep going. And what if you're buried in rubble? Or trapped behind a wall? Or left alone on the planet after World War III destroys humanity? You're still immortal, after all, but there's nothing left.
But what if everyone was immortal? For one thing, resources will be in even more demand, because now there will be infinitely more people in need of satisfaction. Nearly the entire medical industry would collapse because nobody needs medicine or treatment, bringing the global economy down with it. And if everyone is still able to have kids, God help us all. We're overpopulated right now because of the Birth-Death ration; imagine if the second part of that equation was a zero.
Of course, all of this is a moot point because Twilight Sparkle will not outlive her friends.
I've said my piece. Now if you'll excuse me, I will go back to my corner of hatred and stare at my own reflection.
Well, if you think about it, it should be clear which side of the argument is going to come out ahead in the long run.
Not sure what brought this on, but here's my two bits: I don't think I could be trusted to be immortal. See, I have issues with procrastination. I always tell myself that I'll do it later, and then it gets left alone until it's too late. If I had no time limits, nothing would ever get done. Besides, I have no idea what I'm gonna do with myself for the next fifty years, so how would I figure out what to do for an eternity?
This is the official line from DHX and Hasbro, though as always I like to point out that "Twilight Sparkle will not outlive her friends" is not the same thing as saying "Twilight Sparkle is not immortal." Though that was probably the intent, but it does give a little wiggle room.
In any event, I don't like when the immortal thing gets depressing. My favorite "immortal Twilight" story is True True Friends Until the Very End.
Myself, I'd take my risks with the immortality. Personally, I'd find it fascinating to move between different cultures and learn. Even if I only spent ten years in each country in Eurasia, if I started in Spain and ended in Japan, by the time I got to Japan the culture in Spain would have changed so much from when I went there that I could learn all over again.
Having said that, I would want an out, a way to end my immortality if desired. First thought is some kind of potion only I know how to make, or a specific phrase or code I'd never say in real life.
You may outlive us all.
The Other 5 of the Mane 6 might ascend to Alicorns. The animators accidentally used an Alicorn-Puppet of Rarity in S04E12 “Pinkie Pride”.
I think I may take the immortality road and I say this solely based on the lifestyle I wish to take (at least for now). I wish to travel and see everything I can and meet as many people I can during my travels. This is fueled by a desire to learn as much as I can and find new perspectives in the world we live in.
Yes people will die in my lifespan, and I will be forced to move on as life around me will continue on without a second thought and I can't afford to tarry for too long. Will I fall in love and wish to stay with someone? You bet I will. It would suck and I may wish to die when they pass, but I think I will move on (may not be intimate for a while).
Will I get bored of all around me. Eventually, yes. I may come to the belief that I've seen and learned all I need about this world, become arrogant. But I hope something may surprise me and get me back to my passion (planetary travel may exist at some point and that may be interesting).
If we are going to argue about finances and food acquisition, many people have lived successfully as backpackers, drifters, travelers since the beginning of the human race. I think I'll be alright there (soon to be learning wilderness survival).
Now if I get down on my luck and trapped, that would suck and I'm not too sure on what I'd do in that case, except call for help until it comes or eventually make my way out. Always carry explosives to blow my way out?
If I ever want my life to end, there are plenty of ways to destroy my body completely to make sure it happens, if we are talking of limited regeneration where the majority of the body is needed and not regeneration from a spec of dust.
I agree that making everyone immortal is a terrible idea. Your list pretty much covers the environmental and economic reasons.
I'll still take Immortality in a heartbeat. I will be The Mare From Earth, which is one of the best movies to touch on this very subject.
I think the only way to survive Immortality is to be a Complete Sociopath. Face it, everyone around you is going to die and you aren't. Either find more Immortals to hang out with, successfully kill yourself, or simply don't give a fuck. Plus you can commit any sin! What's gonna happen? You go to hell with you die? You can't spell Immortal without Immoral!
Personally, I'm categorically in favor of that sort of immortality as long as there's some sort of off-switch. If there isn't, it requires a bit more thought (most of which is devoted to the question of "what degree of force would be necessary to kill me?"). But if there's an off-switch? I'd definitely take it.
The thing about immortality as I see it is that it's not about living forever; it's about living until I stop wanting to (or, more precisely, until I stop liking it, since I'm working on restructuring my goal system to incorporate my likes rather than my wants). I'm not sure how long that'd be, whether two centuries, or five, or a bunch of millennia (although, given the seemingly-exponential increase in the complexity of life as time goes on, I'd place stronger bets on the latter). Now, a few specific counterarguments:
The economy being in ruins if everyone becomes immortal: The population explosion could potentially be a problem, assuming we don't get space colonization done reasonably expediently, but I think you're underestimating the resilience of the global economy in the face of the death of the medical industry. There would be a lot of interest groups trying to keep the industry alive, of course, but the world economy has a history of surviving the loss of major economic cornerstones once they become obsolete. (See also: slavery)
Lack of money: Not a problem for immortals any more than currently-existing humans, so I don't see what differentiates it from the losing-friends thing.
Getting kicked out of places: Unless there are laws on the subject that I'm not aware of, living beyond the current arbitrary 120-year limits humans seem to have isn't illegal. Some places might try to kick you out anyway just because of the weird factor, of course, but there are plenty of places likely to take you in without necessitating an escape to the fringes of society, unless you do something horrible enough to earn national and/or global hatred; based on my experience with human xenophobia, it's not strong enough for immortality to do that on its own.
And as far as the plus-sides go? Well, life is fun. I enjoy it, and don't expect to stop doing so any time in the next few centuries, assuming I live that long. So my desire for immortality really isn't as much in terms of viewing "living forever" as a positive thing as in terms of viewing "death" as a negative thing (since it cuts off my fun prematurely) and not seeing any alternatives to death which don't involve living forever.
So I'm guessing you don't agree with Hayes view on the issue then?
1968348
Hell does not exist anyway. When we die, our brains stop working. ¿Why would immortals be any less or more ethical than mortals?
Why would you be immortal? So you can go insane?
Everything fades within time. Human beings AREN'T supposed to live forever. Pizza is the best food of all time.
Those were facts.
Like your post, I usually don't read anything I won't comment on. But philosophy always catches me everytime.
1968376 That's believe, not fact!
1968456
It is the null hypothesis.
1968348
People will know plenty of people that will die in their lifetimes.
It's like people think that you will grieve forever. The thing is, healthy people get over it. You'll love your wife but if she dies you can still re-marry, and if your immortal you'll likely simply tell your love that yes, you will die in their lifetime, but they will remember you as they live on.
As for Immorality...Oh hey guess what, people can still imprison you quite well, not to mention the fact that not everyone believes in a hell and they still don't suddenly murder everyone. Religion isn't what keeps morality in check y'know.
>We're overpopulated right now because of the Birth-Death ration
ugh gotta love talks about population that don't define terms so it's just a bicker circle....
if you wanna talk about what really matters witch is the caring capacity of the earth which is based off a physical reference then it's easy to see the problem isn't with the population , it's with the culture , those who grow up in a consumerist society don't like to admit that though.....
my answer to the question would be.......hmmmmm thinking about it just now im not so sure , im all for the alleviation of the suffering of life which is easy enough to get a net positive on , but bring the concept of extending life to immortal status things get tricky since im sure it would be a net positive to have things be alive rather than dead , but the thing is we can't actually comprehend what infinity/eternity even means , we're just not built to be able to , and so in the scenario we may be immortal now , but how bout infinity from now? i can't imagine there wouldn't be something happening in our known universe along the way that would get in the way of that , thus ending the life , and if all the immortal life still ends up dead anyways , then we didn't actually 'save' any life by granting immortality to life
the only cop out way i see of getting around this is to somehow have the consciousness of life transcend our known physical reality to be outside of the laws that govern the universe to infinity and thus be immune to it's effects
but since we can only dream about such concepts and have no actual information on the subject as far as i know i don't know if that would be considered a net positive gain on the alleviation of the suffering of life , 'saving' lives by transcending , if they would actually be immortal , or if it would just be another way of killing life................
.....hmmm yeah suffice to say im less than not interested in addressing any of the ultimately inconsequential points you brought up about the subject , aside from you didn't define what you meant by "would this be good?" , so i don't know what you're even trying to argue in the rest of the things you talked about.....
but i would like to hear what you have to say in light of that.....
1968327 "(planetary travel may exist at some point and that may be interesting). "
well if you take into account the extra terrestrials that have already contacted a contact message we sent out many decades ago.......aaactually thinking about this just now as well i can't say for sure that that proves they have obtained planetary travel yet -- at least the kind i think you're referring to being a free form transport capability like a transit system and not the planetary travel systems we already have -- since it could be that they may just have some kind of advanced communications technology to obtain our message after it had only barely left our solar system.....
but then how would they have made the markings on those crops? perhaps some kind of advanced targeting system coupled with a laser technology could have cause the precise damage necessary to bend those crops , some interesting theory crafting for sure......
"I agree that making everyone immortal is a terrible idea. Your list pretty much covers the environmental and economic reasons. "
making everyone with their current upbringing and education immortal would not be a very health idea indeed as it would likely result in more suffering than the immortality would alleviate for that time....
...or would it? say we did grant life immortality whether it be simultaneous or not , such a shock to the foundation of their world view might just be what the human population of this planet needs to wake them up so to speak about what reality is actually surrounding them and not the many games they've locked themselves into which would enable them to become what many societies would consider to be ideal human beings instead of the violent uneducated unskilled unethical humans many still are today.....
1968348 "I think the only way to survive Immortality is to be a Complete Sociopath"
why?.....
"Plus you can commit any sin! What's gonna happen? You go to hell with you die? You can't spell Immortal without Immoral!"
but you can already "commit any sin!" right now........
1968349 "The thing about immortality as I see it is that it's not about living forever; it's about living until I stop wanting to"
but if you take that line of reasoning then you first have to understand about what makes you (life) want to live in the first place
and saying it's your will to choice that which you freely made doesn't work since there's no such thing as free will , as illustrated by sam herris
now admittedly that's about all i can say on the subject of why does life want to life (on the complex level of chemical reactors (being our brains) 'deciding' this is a thing we want) , since humans are shaped by their environment it could very well just be a cultural thing derived from the more primitive form of part where the life the replicated and eventually reproduced itself got to keep living , and those that didn't didn't........
" I'm not sure how long that'd be, whether two centuries, or five, or a bunch of millennia (although, given the seemingly-exponential increase in the complexity of life as time goes on, I'd place stronger bets on the latter)"
exponentiallality (<why isn't that a word??....) has nothing to do with it , in my response to iah i addressed the part about us talking about infinite concepts here , which he physically can't even comprehend , framing your response on a limited time frame is just hilariously naive.......
"Well, life is fun. I enjoy it, and don't expect to stop doing so any time in the next few centuries,"
again see my response to iah which is also applicable to these comments.....
though i shall also say i am in the same boat as you , our bodies make life something worth experiencing and i don't want/intend on it stopping anytime soon either , the problem is this is a double 'well fuck' scenario , either die - which we're pretty familiar with - , you do things , gain experiences , develop as a life form , and then you die and all that , everything , is lost , and can never be re-obtained....
or you don't die , and you continue to develop (although to be clear im talking mostly about a personality and knowledge sense here since our biology allows for very minimal adaption in a single developing life) , to become what? a 'better' person? can 'better' go on forever? what will it look like? or will it hit a threshold and become something else? we have no data on the matter so we can only use our chemical reaction based model prediction machines (aka our brains) to guess these answers , but i don't think guessing will suffice here........
so we're left with the dilemma of the evil we do know vs the evil we don't............
1968383 "Why would you be immortal? So you can go insane?
"
explain why you think this would be the case.....
"Human beings AREN'T supposed to live forever."
nothing is "supposed" to anything , that's a moral claim , which i don't think is what you're actually trying to argue here , this does act as a good leaping point for me however to share some more relative information i have which im sure everyone here will be interested in , which also to make a counter claim to what i beehive you're actually trying to say which is that humans aren't built to live forever/be immortal , which it turns out we kinda are , we're just not built to be indestructible.........
"Like your post, I usually don't read anything I won't comment on. But philosophy always catches me everytime."
hah! if you thought this was good philosophy , then you'll really love checking out some philosophical societal stuff from the anarchistic perspective , now there's some real good philosophy being put to good use.........
ok , it's been great all but this kept me up an hour longer than i was already supposed to be going to sleep for x.x , needless to say tiiirerrredd........
1968551
I already said why!
1968530 Ha! Keep telling yourself that, buddy! And I never said murder, I said sin. total difference!
1968521
The only thing keeping the immortals in check was the sentence of aging.
1968456
As is YOUR
"believe"belief. Never bring Religion to an Insert_Topic_Here debate.If that isn't already a rule of the Internet, it should be.
------------
To the topic at hand
My problem with this, is that you seemed to only touch on an "impossible" version of immortality. I say that, as I doubt this form of immortality could be developed over the span of the next few Million Years in real life (which you went into and stayed in throughout most of that post). I just cannot fathom any way that one could achieve this level of immortality short of some hand-wave in a fictional universe.
The far more interesting form of immortality in my eyes, probably because I believe that it may become obtainable within my lifetime, is one that centers around Anti-aging, and Medical and/or Technological advancements beyond what we have today. To remove our expiration date, and to be free to live anywhere from millennia to mere seconds. True, the impacts of this form of immortality might be dire, but I can think of ways of making it work.
==Assuming that everyone on the planet achieves this form of immortality==
(just in case that wasn't clear)
Impose a population cap upon the world to help regulate resources. While we're at it, find better economic systems to regulate the resources in a more sustainable way than presently available, with the cap increasing in size based upon the above. Also, funnel as much research and development as possible into interstellar capabilities, so that humanity may expand to the rest of the stars. At that point, the population cap is essentially a note telling you to move out and find a new home, at least until we run out of places to live in the vastness of space itself.
However, if interstellar travel hasn't reached a certain level of development in a reasonable length of time (a few centuries for example), then it might be required to... dispose of some people, to make room for a new generation. Just to make sure that our technological capabilities don't stagnate.
It's harsh, and I just know that someone will downvote this and dedicate a wall of text just for that single idea alone, but considering the fact that they would probably be dead by now without their immortality status, it's... not quite as bad as it sounds? It's to make sure that we as a species have a future, which is as worthy of a goal as any I can think of.
Really, this bit about making room for new generations is just a temporary situation that could occur if say, getting a few million people to Mars isn't quite feasible for some reason. Permanently imposing such would defeat the purpose of immortality, though being youthful to the end, and setting the age-limit to something over 100 or so would both still be benefits, if not nearly as much as true immortality would be.
Also, devote some time looking into Cryonics, as that should be a more humane solution to the problem above (and could help with interstellar capabilities while we're at it). A human in suspended animation should consume less resources than one who is not.
As far as the economic system goes, I personally think that's going to be torn the hell within the next few decades assuming technological progress continues at its current rate, regardless of whether or not there are 7 Billion immortal people in the world. Though, whether said 7 Billion immortals shall outlive any possible downfalls of a screwed over economy, is another question entirely.
---
As far as ponies go, Twilight Sparkle is going to outlive her friends and there's not a single thing you can do about it. Screw the canon, I have a Multiverse to work with.
1968595 Now I'm bored of this. *pours gasoline on the thread and sets it on fire*
1968601 Have fun with that.
1968602 Have fun with what?
Never really bought into that compliant. I just don't see Celestia as even having the power to do so in the first place. The magic that transforms Twilight clearly comes from inside of herself. Celestia guided Twilight on the path to enlightenment and ascension, but in the end it was something Twilight had to achieve by her own merit.
1968310
Personally my concept of that "wiggle" room has always been that the truth of that statement was based upon the expected run of the show itself. Barring an extensive time skip, the show is unlikely to be on the air long enough for Twilight's (or any other character's) lifespan to ever become relevant. Moreover still, as an animated series MLP isn't bound by any strict temporal constraints, and so just like the Simpson it can run indefinitely without any of the characters ever aging a day.
As to whether or not Twilight is actually immortal though, personally I'm of the opinion that every fan should be allowed to make their own choice on the matter. My own opinion though is that none of the alicorns are immortal just by virtue of being alicorns. Rather, Magic Duel introduced the concept of age magic, and as such any unicorn capable of casting that spell could then in theory live forever by just constantly resetting their own age. So to me the question isn't whether or not Twilight is immortal, but whether or not she will choose to be.
Agreed. I mean, most people will universally agree that to live a long life is always better than living a short life, therefore it should follow that an immortal life would be even better still. Sometimes I think all the backlash and stigma against the concept of immortality is just a coping mechanism, that by making up reasons why it would suck we don't have to feel bad about being mortal.
1968656
Thus why he said the STORY, in which Celestia could actually do so.
Celestia let them die because she felt they weren't important enough as their student, and Twilight kept that idea alive till she saw a few of her friends die, trying to self-justify it to herself.
I have yet to come across a really good argument against immortality itself. Almost everything seems to be either based in externalities (what the world would do, population and resource scarity etc.) which is about side effects, or based on unprovable belives (immortals would go insane/socipathic, when noone has been immortal).
Religious stuff or natural order based things arent even worth mentioning.
And for the side effects argument, always approach it from some position like: If we could do that, but dont, we are effectively killing everyone. Is X million deaths per year worth some vague long-term troubles we may find a way around in time? Why not insititute a "execute everyone at 60" or something, at some point it becomes functionally the same (or at least the same as withholding medical care after reaching a certain age).
And the pharmaindustry? Really? I guess we better forbid the internet because it could put newspapers out of buisness. Following that logic new technology may never be invented ever, because it could make things obsolete. And again, let millions of people die because...enconomic problem... excuse me for not approving that logic.
There may be usefull arguments against immortality, but this isnt one.
Much edge, learn to laugh with life you faggot.
Seeing that you mentioned Twilight I'm guessing you got annoyed at teh fans whining that Twilight will outlive her friends and is THE WORST POSSIBLE THNG
.
My two cents... the Alicorns are simply long lived, to quote Brumbly_Run's The Broken Mare: "My claim on immortality is a tenuous one at best. It is simply because I have not died yet." They can still die but it takes a lot to do that.
Also Twilight might outlive her friends physically, she will never outlive their memory.
m.quickmeme.com/img/cc/cce2d344aaaaee1f5f01d8ec3a37875da2457ba37c851319a0d27825694d2a33.jpg
Do you mean immortality in this world, or including the FiM-verse, because methinks its success will vary between situations.
1968564 you don't give a reason why those would lead to your claim though.....
1968595
hmm , perhaps i should start using this method of quoting , since it helps makes things more distinguished , i thank this thread for inspiring me to finally make this shift.....
also in total agreement with you there , that should be a rule lol.....
you mean like the video i embedded explaining it's possibility in my comment which nobody read?.....
a population cap is imposed on us whether we chose to make one or not , that being a physical cap for amount of life that can be supported in our given biosphere.....
as for a better economic system , we already have that figured out to , ever herd of a resource based economic model?.....
1968654
not just in bacteria , there's full fledged animals that are alive and immortal today , such as the lobster.....
*...raises hand......*
come again?.....
1968794 .......how bout my thought experiment on it in this thread?..........no?........no one?..........sigh..........
1969552 Isn't it self explanatory?
1969631 afraid not.....
1969636 What? Of course it is!
1969552
Possibly. I haven't checked that video yet. For a moment there I thought you were referring to that 1 hour long vid, and I wasn't going to deal with that at all. I'll look into that other one.
Yes, I'm very much aware of a resource based economic system (The Venus Project comes to mind), but to my knowledge it's not in actual practice, or at least on a scale that matters. It's all well and good that we may know of a (potentially) better system, but until it's actually used, I don't see how it can help anyone.[1]
Changing economic systems isn't the same as changing your OS, or your keyboard layout, or "going green" or some nonsense. For those things, you can do it yourself, and you might be able to convince quite a few people to follow you in an effort to better humanity, but economic systems are a bit harder to work with. At least, that's what I would assume.
--
While I'm here
1968794
I entirely agree.
---
EDIT: [1] - Though, when the population of the world becomes immortal overnight, having the knowledge necessary to implement such a system across the planet would certainly be better than nothing, and should cut down on potential riots or what have you.
Then again, Anti-aging immortality might not mean anything over the course of time of a single night or so, but whatever.
1969675 hey it took me a whole hour just to type out what i did last night....
then why did you say
:l ?.....
it may be more ambitious , but there's no physical law that has to make it 'harder' than switching an os , since it's not an operation of it's own and is entirely dependent on our participation in it , at least until full automation kicks in anyways.......
1969694
Because I went to sleep at 4 AM, probably spent an hour or so perfecting my own post, and possibly let the whole resource based economy thing slip my mind. Alternatively, perhaps a resource based economy isn't the best, or only solution to the problem. Who am I to say? I haven't touched the idea of resource-based economies in a few years now so I don't quite feel confident telling everyone to switch to the Linux of economic systems when I'm still running the equivalent of Windows.
And yes, of course there are no physical laws in place for the economic system. If our civilization consisted of 20 people, it would probably be the easiest thing in the world to switch systems. The fact of the matter is, that it's not that simple at the scale of the world as a whole. You'll have problems on a country level, if you could even get that far. The idiots in power would rather start a 20 year war over this shit than actually do something productive.
The day that the world we know today becomes fully automated can't come soon enough for me. Just imagine: factories automated from raw material to end product (They don't do that already do they? Our world is too inefficient for us to something as logical as that, right?), retail being killed off in favor of online stores, fast food "restaurants" being converted into oversized vending machines (if they survive the retail bit), UPS/FedEx being powered by Google's self driving car nonsense. That's just the tip of the iceberg, though the only bit I feel like thinking about at the moment.
AI could also be nice, though your mileage may vary, and may risk going completely off topic.
1969747 indubitably....
I think that the one story that sums this up the best is the one in which Fluttershy makes 'Death' leave Equestria alone, effectively making Equestria immortal... (though it's name escapes me
) It talks about the overpopulation, lack of resources, and ponies practically committing suicide (by walking out of Equestria) because they can't stand being immortal. Someone tell me the name of that story... please.
The kind of immortality you described is what I call comic book super hero immortality, as in it will never happen except in made up fiction. Characters like Wolverine that have a body that can spit out bullets and heal up in seconds and nonsense like that will never exist.
Now, biological immortality technically already exists for a few known organisms, just not for humans. Basically, it means that the mechanism that causes the gradual breakdown of the cells doesn't happen for them, so they could potentially live forever. However, environmental factors such as trauma and disease can still kill the organism. This is a much more realistic version of immortality that could really exist. Whether or not humans will eventually archive that kind of immortality, or resistance to aging, is yet to be seen, but there are groups actively working on it. If it is something that can be solved with a drug or some sort of therapy, I seriously doubt it will cause a crash in the economy. Dead people don't generate income for the medical industry, alive people do, because they get sick, get injured, need checkups, and the like. A dead person needs none of that. Also, it is the medical industry that will be the one that comes up with some sort of anti-aging medication or therapy, which they can market for a lot of potential income.
But enough of that, lets talk about immortality in MLP.
It's also my personal head cannon that the kind of immortality that exists in the MLP universe is biological immortality. Celestia and Luna have lived for over 1,000 years not because they can't die, but because they haven't died yet. They either age very very slowly, or not at all, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as being completely immune to harm. I've read some good fan fiction that puts them on the level of Goddesses that can't die from anything, but I personally don't put them on that level myself. Crazy powerful, yes, immune to death, no.
All in all it's just an opinion though. There is no official word from Hasbro on the immortality of any of the characters in MLP. The tweet that you quoted from Meghan McCarthy is what I call a non-answer. It throws something out as a response that doesn't clearly answer the question that was asked, which was 'Is Twilight immortal?' If they wanted the answer to be clear, they would have said either 'yes' or 'no', not something vague that beats around the bush for no other reason than to be trolly.
It's a kids cartoon show, so they aren't likely to deal with the issue of death. For cannon purposes, we're not getting an answer. That leaves it open to interpretation per author in fan fiction, as far as I'm concerned. So long as each author does a decent job at handling it, I don't mind of half say she's immortal and half say she isn't. I just want to read some good stories.
ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/1715/18364.JPG
1971130
The sun would get the last laugh. Either it would supernova and incinerate your eyes (and the rest of the galaxy) or it would collapse and mak a lovely black hole inwhich to crush your face (and the rest of the galaxy)
1971828
this is the part i wanted explanation of , understanding that the matter can separate itself away from each other at the speed of light is simple enough , though in saying that i see that's not actually what you're saying , which is a concept i am not familiar with then......w
1971214
the rest of our galaxy ._. ?
since when did our sun become the quasar?....
I agree completely!
1972417 ye yes you've explained that several times now , although the finner details are still left a mystery like i thought the thing about space was that it was the absence of of matter , and if matter can't be destroyed , then how can it's spacial relation to matter increase? aside form the part where outside the known universe i assume we assume is initiate space so that continuing to expand in such a manner will give us more space relatively to work with......
no wait no again that's not what you're saying , which is where the confusion comes in , cause it's supposed to be a law that no matter can travel faster than light , yet you're saying there will come a time where matter will separate faster than light , so matter can't be the cause itself for this effect , which is where all the explaining about what space actually is would take place
but aside from all that.....
the part i wanted clarifying was
1972417
1972384
Damn, science be proving me wrong!
1976406 hmmmmm ok.....