Aging (and Age Issues) within Immortality

[Night Gardener]

While writing, I often find myself going down the intellectual "rabbit hole" and have to write my way out. It's a useful exercise and generates a lot of material and ideas. I had one of these recent thought experiments and thought I'd post, because I'm curious how other Scribes have worked out this problem.

Admittedly, this recent rabbit hole excursion was prompted by a recent RL U.S. special election involving a certain candidate. It got me thinking about age-appropriate and age-desparity issues in my WIP, and I genuinely had to give pause and reflect on the societal norms I would be proposing, and how my readers might react to it.

In my WIP, there are mortals (humans with normal lifespans) and magic practioners (those who use varying energy-crafts that prolong their lifespans or acheive immortality). However, as a learned craft, Practioners are born non-magical. They age and develop normally until their practice changes their physiology; a process unique for each person. Typically, their aging slows down or ceases around 25-35. Then, on average, for every decade they age physically about 1 year. Eventually, this can scale up (or down) to 100 years equalling 1 year of aging depending on your magical practices. Again, this is unique to each person.

This creates 2 cultural conditions in my mind:
1. Children, childhood, and the teen to young adult years are very significant times. If you live for hundreds or thousands of years, childhood is a blink. As a source of common ground, the death of children is equally devastating to mortal and immortals.

2. The visibly 'wise, wrinkled and gray', while inevitable, are also significant to immortals. Basically, you'll be "middle-aged" for freaking ever. To physically appear "old" or "elderly" means you might as well be old as dirt.

So, my MC is around 17 in my mind.

Later in the story, she has an infactuation with an older man, biologically about 35 in physical appearance. He politely refuses her advances, because he is "too old for her" and doesn't feel it's appropriate.

... then I did my own math.

If he stopped aging at say, 20... and appears 35...
That's 170 years+ her senior. At least.

Well, that's where the rabbit hole opened up around my feet and down I went.

In fantasy genres, there's a lot of variations on a theme of immortality and the long-lived. A lot of it being of broader philosophical implications about the gift mortality, or immortality bringing a curse or damnation, etc. But, as far as I can recall, Robert Heinlein was an author that addressed some of the daunting impracticalities of being long-lived amongst the not-long-lived populations. It was a huge inconvenience day-to-day... for a lot of days. However, his MC actively tried to conceal his immortality amongst varying peoples. Heinlein also explored themes about monogamous and polyamorous relationships among populations that lived a long time.

In my WIP, the immortals are not in hiding, nor are they segregated or elusive populations. They are actively involved in a mixed population. So, they're inter-mingling. This also bypasses the Tolkien-esque elves syndrome, wherein the Elves basically can't co-exist with Men because their scale of time and attitudes towards it is fundamentally incompatible.

In my WIP, this is a relatively new society of many blended cultures, in addition to mortals and immortals. There's an awful lot to generate friction, but people here in this kingdom genuinely want to get along in a free society.

This line of thought led to what social norms and morals might develop under these conditions. In fantasy, we can make up any culture we want, but I don't want to be... distasteful to audiences on the subject, either. Some people reading might find the idea of a 17 year old woman and a 170+ year old man in a physical relationship to be exploitive and repulsive. The question is, Would my fictional society find it repulsive too?

Then, in addition to that question, all sorts of logistical issues came into focus. . .

How would an immortal character see themselves in this aging system?

"29 years old"... for 10 years, then 30 for another decade? (Or, 29 for 1000 years? 29 forever? ) Would you celebrate your own birthday every year? Every decade? Only count the centuries? How would you identify with what scale of time? Would you even bother to observe your own birthday?

The idea of age equalling rank or seniority is also challenging, because there is no standard as immortality is so individualized. I suppose carrying around a birth certificate to prove your age might be a requirement, because physical appearances can be deceiving.

Then, circling back to the age-desparity in relationships... if I did create a society where they would be repulsed by the age differences... what is the actual repulsive factor? Based on observable physical appearances, or by the actual ages? At some point... does it make any real difference if it's 30, 300, or 3000 years older?

Then, family planning... adults could have children decades or hundreds of years apart... or, conversely have hundreds of children. What would that be like? And, if families/ dynasties aren't mostly monogamous, how would you keep track of issues like... mapping out a family tree or inheritance? Heck... how would inheritance work if your friends and relatives basically... don't die?

Then with death, What would mourning look like?
Would they even mourn? Then the other side of the arguement, birthrates: what the heck do demographics and populations look like over time?

Then, other thoughts that are a little more amusing... at what point would this culture consider objects to be antiques? Would they even value objects and posessions in that regard? Perhaps material posession becomes of little consequence when you live in a scale of time where most of your posessions turn to dust and deteriorate long before you do. And talk about watching trends being ressurrected- you might not want to get rid of anything because it might come back into vogue again! It was all the rage 500 years ago...

How have you fellow Scribes thought around these issues? I'm curious...

 

[CupofJoe]

I haven't celebrated my birthday for over ten years and I am far from immortal. Damn it!
As one of my favourite characters is Sparhawk from DL Edding's Elenium books [where a teen age Queen decides to marry her protector who is 25 years [or maybe more] her senior] I don't have a problem with the age gap. Up until fairly recently and maybe still there were cultures where a young teenage girl married to an older man was a good thing to be aspired to...
I've not used immortality in a story before [because I think it is too complex a questions to work through - as I think you are finding]. But in things I've read, I see a certain aloofness in the characters. If someone lives for thousands of years and their friends for at most live for a hundred; they are going to be burying a lot of friends. That's a lot of grief to carry around. I see that aloofness as a protection for their own sanity. They won't let people get too close for too long, but day-to-day they are still going to have to met people, talk, be generally sociable just to get on with life.
I would imagine that inheritance and primogeniture laws are going to be very highly developed... probably absolute primogeniture... first born first in line...
And also the incest taboos and marriage laws are going to be highly developed. If someone could be the same [apparent] age as you and be your great great grand parent or great great grand child... those bits of information are going to become important. Some cultures have a clan structure where you can't marry someone from your own clan [or a linked clan] to try and keep the gene pool as wide as possible [even if they didn't know that at the time].

 

[WooHooMan]

See, all my immortals tend to hang-out with each-other. I think that skews how they see their age.

Also, how well they remember or regard different periods of time depend more on the significance of the period. For example, the most human immortal I got remembers his formative years pretty well but his 50's-410's are a blur. Then he got married (he was 590, she was 30) and that started the period that he really sees as "his life now". He considers himself to be in his 40's because he fits the role of a middle age man with his job, looks, demeanor, kids and all that.
So, I guess it's not about the numbers themselves but more how the immortal sees those numbers.

I also dislike the idea that immortality would bring about aloofness or weariness just by default. I've known plenty of spry old people and lethargic young people. I've also known young people who have seen and done a lot and old people who had wasted their lives doing nothing. And people who think they've done nothing when they really have and vice versa.
So, the way I see it is that there's no real correlation between age and vitality.

 

[Dark Squiggle]

I don't think people like these would treat age in the same way we do altogether. The way we as humans treat childhood, youth, sex, and marriage is bound greatly by the fact that we spend about 1/5 of our lives both dependent on older humans and more or less sexually immature, and then another good chunk at the end sexually inactive, and maybe dependent again at the end. This makes it that to have a long-term relatively symbiotic relationship like marriage or something similar with another human, you'd have to be of relatively close age. However, if you had an endless supply of life as an active adult, it may not be so important. Animals that have very long sexually active lives, compared to the time they spend as juveniles, even if they care for their young as a mated pair, will raise a few batches of young together and then find another mate. Look at cichlids - as long as they are reasonably matched by the terms of their species they won't have an issue mating with a fish 20x their age. A human pair raising a batch of young will take at least 25 years out of a sexually active life of maybe 50 years, so it'd be a bad idea to choose a mate too much older than you, but if you could raise a batch of young in 3 years, why not?

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Our immortals - faeries and vampires and dragons and others - tend to think rather differently than our mortals, especially in terms of time, politics, and sex, depending on their own ages and the time period of their youth. A vampire made fairly recently will have a modern mind, but a Viking will think in very different terms, not trapped in their own time period per se but still a product of their upbringing. Being people, even different sorts of people, it's not something that's easy to escape.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I have elves in my setting, and they are immortal (shocker).

One of the things they have to deal with is weariness of the world and life itself. If you live on indefinitely there will come times when life seems dull and pointless. This happens to elves too.

The way the elves deal with this is by going feral. They have the ability to shut down all higher mental functions and revert to a state of being little more than apes. In this way they're able to take a vacation from life and come back again at a later time to see how the world has changed during the years/decades/centuries they ran around in the forest hunting rabbits.

 

[Night Gardener]

I haven't celebrated my birthday for over ten years and I am far from immortal. Damn it!

Awwww.... Cup of Joe, celebrate a birthday!

As one of my favourite characters is Sparhawk from DL Edding's Elenium books [where a teen age Queen decides to marry her protector who is 25 years [or maybe more] her senior] I don't have a problem with the age gap. Up until fairly recently and maybe still there were cultures where a young teenage girl married to an older man was a good thing to be aspired to...

I think that the age differences between mature adults in the long run doesn't matter. It's primarily concerns about consent and possible exploitation that raises eyebrows. And for me it's regardless of gender... young boys/girls with much, much older women /men generates the same 'hmmm no' reaction regardless of combinations.

You're right though that historically, teen girls and older men was the norm... but that was when women were mostly property and the concept of 'marrying for love' was not popular unless you were common-folk. The Victorian Era basically changed this to an egalitarian standard for relationships: marry for love. Alledgedly, everything else are just extra perks and secondary concerns.

But, in my world a lot of western/eastern culture regarding women as second-class citizens basically never happened among the immortals, so it's not a signifigant cultural factor. Magic became the ultimate equalizer.

I've not used immortality in a story before [because I think it is too complex a questions to work through - as I think you are finding].

Yes. It's becomming a bit of a logistical challenge. But, I've been working on it. Feedback is productive.

But in things I've read, I see a certain aloofness in the characters. If someone lives for thousands of years and their friends for at most live for a hundred; they are going to be burying a lot of friends. That's a lot of grief to carry around. I see that aloofness as a protection for their own sanity. They won't let people get too close for too long, but day-to-day they are still going to have to met people, talk, be generally sociable just to get on with life.

In this society, there are varying shades of aloofness. But, as it is a 'new society', this set of immortals are actively living, governing, and participating /socializing on an 'equal' egalitarian system. It's a philosophical choice to love fully and stay engaged, even in spite of inevitable loss. Much in the same way of having a pet. Yes, you'll likely outlive your beloved pet, but is it worth not loving your pet fully because you know it'll die one day? Will it stop you from befriended other, new pets after their passing? Maybe at some point you need to take a break, but chances are you'll want to dive in again.

I would imagine that inheritance and primogeniture laws are going to be very highly developed... probably absolute primogeniture... first born first in line...

I think this could work... the first-born inherits as an Executor of sorts, to govern and distribute inheritence to other survivors/siblings.

And also the incest taboos and marriage laws are going to be highly developed.

Agreed. Incest because... eew. But there has to be some sort of premarital decree of law that handles planned seperations or divorce for whatever reasons.

If someone could be the same [apparent] age as you and be your great great grand parent or great great grand child... those bits of information are going to become important. Some cultures have a clan structure where you can't marry someone from your own clan [or a linked clan] to try and keep the gene pool as wide as possible [even if they didn't know that at the time.]

I have started tackling that problem of 'Houses' of different family clans. Incest and 'kissing cousins' are strictly taboo, because genetics are still a very real contributing factor. I think being a 'new', melting-pot culture and the politics/unifying history that generated it will be helpful in limiting the scope of a bit: The Houses that unified to form the Realm were already different clans with different lineages, that weren't co-mingling or inter-married before. The Houses are governing bodies in a sort of Parliament, and there are a lot of unaffiliated immortals of various standing available for the gene pool.

While they may age slowly, immortals are not invincible. They can be killed. And a lot of them perished, so the houses and lineages were thinned out quite a bit. It makes some of the logistics more manageable..

I guess the next issue, regardless of age differences , is the old 'immortal with an mortal' being ok or not... *sigh*

 

[Night Gardener]

I have elves in my setting, and they are immortal (shocker).

One of the things they have to deal with is weariness of the world and life itself. If you live on indefinitely there will come times when life seems dull and pointless. This happens to elves too.

The way the elves deal with this is by going feral. They have the ability to shut down all higher mental functions and revert to a state of being little more than apes. In this way they're able to take a vacation from life and come back again at a later time to see how the world has changed during the years/decades/centuries they ran around in the forest hunting rabbits.

I'm forecasting different attitudes among the immortals. However, the MC's background includes well-adjusted and mostly functional immortals in her sphere of friends and family.

There are diffently going to be dysfunctional, dangerous, and nihilistic immortals. There will also be happy-go-lucky personalities and everything in between.

But I've never thought of reverting to a ferral or primitive state. How interesting!

 

[Night Gardener]

Our immortals - faeries and vampires and dragons and others - tend to think rather differently than our mortals, especially in terms of time, politics, and sex, depending on their own ages and the time period of their youth. A vampire made fairly recently will have a modern mind, but a Viking will think in very different terms, not trapped in their own time period per se but still a product of their upbringing. Being people, even different sorts of people, it's not something that's easy to escape.

I'm trying to start the differences of perspective out in the early parts of the book subtly. The MC starts out in a relatively well-adjusted and egalitarian societal outlook on the similarities between mortals and immortals. . . And then goes to places and meets people that aren't partial to that viewpoint at all.

 

[Night Gardener]

I don't think people like these would treat age in the same way we do altogether. The way we as humans treat childhood, youth, sex, and marriage is bound greatly by the fact that we spend about 1/5 of our lives both dependent on older humans and more or less sexually immature, and then another good chunk at the end sexually inactive, and maybe dependent again at the end. This makes it that to have a long-term relatively symbiotic relationship like marriage or something similar with another human, you'd have to be of relatively close age. However, if you had an endless supply of life as an active adult, it may not be so important. Animals that have very long sexually active lives, compared to the time they spend as juveniles, even if they care for their young as a mated pair, will raise a few batches of young together and then find another mate. Look at cichlids - as long as they are reasonably matched by the terms of their species they won't have an issue mating with a fish 20x their age. A human pair raising a batch of young will take at least 25 years out of a sexually active life of maybe 50 years, so it'd be a bad idea to choose a mate too much older than you, but if you could raise a batch of young in 3 years, why not?

All interesting points Dark Squiggle... I suppose that it would mostly be pragmatic arguments for and against different relationships. I was looking at this from a psuedo-legal stand point, but I much prefer a cultural outlook of certain combinations being 'impractical/ unfair ' rather than 'morally wrong'. There's this idea in my mind that at some point, immortals become pragmatists almost by default via their long-lived experiences... Somewhere between permissive-ness (live and let live) and being grounded by pragmatism.

This would also extend to family planning. Yes, you could theoretically have 100s or 1000s of children in as many years... but pragmatism might curb that trend a bit...

 

[Night Gardener]

See, all my immortals tend to hang-out with each-other. I think that skews how they see their age.

This still happens in some eschalans of immortals.

Also, how well they remember or regard different periods of time depend more on the significance of the period. For example, the most human immortal I got remembers his formative years pretty well but his 50's-410's are a blur. Then he got married (he was 590, she was 30) and that started the period that he really sees as "his life now". He considers himself to be in his 40's because he fits the role of a middle age man with his job, looks, demeanor, kids and all that.
So, I guess it's not about the numbers themselves but more how the immortal sees those numbers.

I could see that being prevalent, having some phases of life being more of a blur than others and marking time by more memorable moments... (we humans kind of already do that already).

I also dislike the idea that immortality would bring about aloofness or weariness just by default. I've known plenty of spry old people and lethargic young people. I've also known young people who have seen and done a lot and old people who had wasted their lives doing nothing. And people who think they've done nothing when they really have and vice versa. So, the way I see it is that there's no real correlation between age and vitality.

^That observation gets 1000 points! So true! And, I don't want aloofness, weariness and boredom or nihilism to be the default state of mind for all immortals.