Are droids immortal? If their parts break, you can just replace them. They don't age to death like biologic species do. The droid Huyang was a thousand years old.

A droid shuts down when it runs out of power, but when its power is restored, the droid is back right? Droids can shut themselves down to conserve power, and presumably they can turn themselves back on. Maybe the droid brain just goes into sleep mode, like on your computer.

If a droid is frozen in carbonite, its mind can still be active, yeah? Its body too, I imagine, it is just completely immobile. It might go into "sleep mode" if it wants. But a frozen droid might lay in the carbonate for centuries, in and out of sleep mode to consider its existence and to plot.

C-3PO stated his fear that he and R2 would be deactivated. Maybe that's death to droids. Being shut down and being unable to come back on voluntarily. What is memory-wiping to a droid? Is it a partial death to them?

Read the C-3PO comic that ties into The Force Awakens. It covers some of these things and I don't want to spoil it.

I've been wanting to read that. I'll pick up a copy.

How immortal is your computer? Theoretically you could keep replacing parts in it as they break down forever, but sooner or later planned obsolescence is going to lead to a shortage of parts, and there's always the possibility of a freak accident destroying your hard drive or melting your motherboard.

If you ignore wear and tear and corrosion and assume that replacement parts are always available, then I guess you could call droids immortal in the "Doesn't die unless killed" sense, but even then, there's a non-zero chance of encountering a fatal accident at any given time which becomes a certainty over a long enough stretch.

Eschewing matters of sentience and souls, I would at least say that droids have a service life, like a car. Eventually replacement parts will become scarce, but clever folks will find solutions to that. At some point, though, we must consider the dataset that is the droid's mind. Its storage space isn't infinite. When I contemplate solutions to that I have a nice Sensible Chuckle™.

I'm happy to talk further but I too don't want to spoil the comic GroggyGolem mentions; I liked it so much I read it twice when I picked it up.

It's at least implied that a droid's software is prone to corruption if it goes too long without a memory wipe. They get more "eccentric" over time. Eventually the droid would probably be dangerous to itself and/or others, or perhaps cease to function.

Also, there's the old debate over when a machine stops being the original machine if you've replaced enough parts. I have a PC that I've had for the past 15+ years by upgrading it over and over and I have never replaced everything at once, yet it doesn't have any of the parts it had when I first built it. I can't say for sure when it stopped being the original computer.

And remember, while its possible to sustain something mechanical longer than a biological "thing" in practice the biological things are much more durable and longliving than their mechanical counterparts.

While you can replace everything on you car and it looks more durable than you, you will most likely be much longer active in this world than you cars (or PCs). As everything its a matter of costs: Who pays for what. Biological entities are much more cost effectice, so they stay in service longer. Take in considersation that you are willing to spend MUCH more money on living on than that your car works, you have the answer why biological beeings will outlive nearly every droid.

I feel like a fair number of these thoughts are taking too much of real life into account. The majority of service life related issues are from how quickly our technology advances and how short a time span things are expected to last. Remember this is star wars where technology barely advances over millennia, and technology has for the most part become so interchangeable between company to company that virtually any part needed can be found or replaced with an equivalent. Also data storage doesn't actually seem to have a limit in star wars unlike in real life. So as far as immortality is concerned I'd certainly view them on the same level as vampires: Cannot age to death, can go into "stasis" if not maintained, but can be reactivated at any point with maintenance, may suffer memory loss from extended periods of stasis, can be killed through sufficient physical trauma. That is to say a step up from Elven immortality, in which case lack of maintenance (sleep/food/etc) would kill the individual, not put them to sleep or in a coma. And a step down from true immortality where you cannot die even from sufficient physical trauma.

I don't think k the question lends itself to an answer as easily as comparing a droid to a computer or a car.

Remember, when droids were thought up, the notion of a personal computer was distant dream for people still.

But let's move forward with the thought that, well, you can fix a droid. Parts are able to be replaced, and in a galaxy where technology advances as slowly as it does in Star Wars, replacement parts likely will be around for some time before custom jobs are required.

So, the real question is, if one were to, over time, replace all the parts of a droid, is it the same droid? This is the ship of Theseus. If one were to replace all parts of a droid, is it the same droid? Of one were to take the original parts and put them back together again, is that the original droid? Are there now two original droids?

So, the real question is, if one were to, over time, replace all the parts of a droid, is it the same droid? This is the ship of Theseus. If one were to replace all parts of a droid, is it the same droid? Of one were to take the original parts and put them back together again, is that the original droid? Are there now two original droids?

I think a better comparison would be to Star Trek's transporter, which that discussion does also reference Theseus's ship, but yea. Because the ship doesn't have consciousness or memories or a personality. But destroying a body, transferring those things, and rebuilding it all someplace else does. It depends on what you define as "The droid", his physical body, or the memories and personality that make him unique.

So, the real question is, if one were to, over time, replace all the parts of a droid, is it the same droid? This is the ship of Theseus. If one were to replace all parts of a droid, is it the same droid? Of one were to take the original parts and put them back together again, is that the original droid? Are there now two original droids?

I think a better comparison would be to Star Trek's transporter, which that discussion does also reference Theseus's ship, but yea. Because the ship doesn't have consciousness or memories or a personality. But destroying a body, transferring those things, and rebuilding it all someplace else does. It depends on what you define as "The droid", his physical body, or the memories and personality that make him unique.

Droid memories can, and are encouraged to be routinely wiped, making them as or more ephemeral than the droid body.

So, the real question is, if one were to, over time, replace all the parts of a droid, is it the same droid? This is the ship of Theseus. If one were to replace all parts of a droid, is it the same droid? Of one were to take the original parts and put them back together again, is that the original droid? Are there now two original droids?

I think a better comparison would be to Star Trek's transporter, which that discussion does also reference Theseus's ship, but yea. Because the ship doesn't have consciousness or memories or a personality. But destroying a body, transferring those things, and rebuilding it all someplace else does. It depends on what you define as "The droid", his physical body, or the memories and personality that make him unique.

Droid memories can, and are encouraged to be routinely wiped, making them as or more ephemeral than the droid body.

For the purpose of an NPC droid sure, it's what keeps them from becoming conscious and unique, keeps them in line, etc. But how many long term character droids, PC's or NPC's actually have those wipes? Would C3PO still be C3PO after them? Would R2? HK-47, who survived thousands of years through several bodies and if I remember correctly, even a factory computer core? (Or something equally crazy) I would call their memories fragile, not short lived. If taken care of and not wiped, they are literally what makes that droid "that" droid instead of simply one of many.

For the purpose of an NPC droid sure, it's what keeps them from becoming conscious and unique, keeps them in line, etc. But how many long term character droids, PC's or NPC's actually have those wipes? Would C3PO still be C3PO after them?

Droids come with a standard personality. Over time that personality gets more and more divergent from the default. Threepio is pretty much the standard of whatever Anakin initially put into him. He was prissy, fussy, obsessed with propriety, and he always tried to soothe conflicts and talk his way out of things politely. He was what a protocol droid was supposed to be.

Artoo on the other hand was far more than an astromech droid. He was a daredevil committed to the Republic/Rebel cause. His model was designed to repair ships and plot hyperspace courses but you frequently saw him use his tools as weapons to protect people, to act as a spy, and other behavior far beyond what you would expect from an astromech. His personality deviated so much over time that by the time of Episode 7 he was depressed and catatonic at his master's disappearance.

HK is another example. I know he was designed to kill people so being bloodthirsty is typical, but not the absolute contempt he showed for his masters. That was not something that anyone would have designed, that must have developed over time.

As everything its a matter of costs: Who pays for what. Biological entities are much more cost effectice, so they stay in service longer. Take in considersation that you are willing to spend MUCH more money on living on than that your car works, you have the answer why biological beeings will outlive nearly every droid.

I'm not so sure that this is a fair or accurate ocmparison. At the very least, its premise assumes that certain variables from our world hold true in the SW universe, which is tenuous at best.

Also, there's subjectivity to account for: naturally *I* would pay more to regain/maintain my own health than to fix my car...I'm me. If my car breaks down I can get a new one and go on with my life. From the car's perspective (if it were sentient), I'm sure it'd be far more concerned about getting that replacement U-joint than my allergy medicine, after all, if it can keep up with it's maintenance and avoid accidents, it can keep running long after my allergies have sent me to take a dirt nap. That's not a fair or accurate comparison, and the fact that we are willing to spend more on personal healthcare than car repair has no real bearing on the discussion.

Another point that mitigates some of this position is the slow pace of SW tech. In many cases it is objectively incorrect that biologicals are more cost effective or that they stay in service longer (in fact, I'd argue that this is incorrect in the real world as well for a wide variety of jobs...otherwise, why would factories be getting away from humans on assembly lines in favor of robotic automation). Industrial Automaton makes R2 astromech droids, and they're quite common over at least 4+ decades just from what we see in the movies, let alone the EU. It's not a huge leap of speculation to assume that it's far, far easier to find replacement parts for a given popular model (or a mechanical equivalent replacement)...or to be able to make or have made a replacement...to ensure a service life of hundreds of years than it is to treat illnesses, mend injuries, and develop cultured or cybernetic replacement parts for failing biological systems. In fact, through the lens of the SW universe, biological entities are far, far more ephemeral than even a simple datapad.

While I agree that emotional attachments play a role in how much we are willing to spend to maintain biological life as opposed to machines, the argument that biological beings are more efficient is not without merit. For one, cars and droids require an entire infrastructure of support that is expensive to maintain, from the fuel/energy they run on, to the factories that produce the replacement parts they need and the tools to install them. Biological life can survive with no infrastructure, e.g. in hunter-gatherer situations. If a biological being crash-lands on a primitive world, they can probably survive once they figure out which local flora and fauna are edible to them. A droid will run out of energy because it can't find an outlet to plug into.

Similarly, biological beings are much better at self-repair. They have a thorough covering to protect their vital bits from the environment, solid defenses at the necessary openings to keep unwanted material from getting in, and the ability to repair holes in said covering provided sufficient energy inputs. A droid has cracks and seams in their chassis and limited ability to keep stuff out of them or expel stuff that finds its way in. 3PO and R2 need some outside TLC or an oil bath if they want to get all the sand out of their joints and circuits, and a hole it a droid's chassis stays there until someone patches it. Cells degrade, but can replace themselves, while metal corrodes and needs replacements that come from elsewhere.

(And yes, I know that the RPG rules allow droids to heal "naturally" due to automated self-repair systems, but that's more of game rule contrivance to keep a level playing field than something we see reflected in the universe. It doesn't matter how long HK-47 spends "resting" on Tattooine, he's not going to repair those connections to his lost memory banks without outside intervention.)

For that reason, I wouldn't say droids have "vampire-level" immortality, because a droid sitting around deactivated for long enough will rust and corrode until it is unsalvageable. I mean, you could completely clean out the insides and put new parts in, but then we're not even talking about a Theseus's ship situation, we're talking about building a new being in another one's corpse.

And if you're going to compare life spans between droids and organics in the context of Star Wars, then you also have to take into account that there are biological species like Anzat and Gen'Dai which have life spans measured in millennia. The only droid I know of who can compete with that is HK-47, who seems to be a pretty big outlier in the Star Wars universe.

Also data storage doesn't actually seem to have a limit in star wars unlike in real life.

You have a source on that? I'd argue that given astromechs and ships have limited capacity to store hyperspace routes, we do in fact have storage limitations.

I would also argue that while there seems to be the perception that technology doesn't change, subtle cues throughout canon material indicate that technology does in fact change, even within the lifetime of main characters!

For one, cars and droids require an entire infrastructure of support that is expensive to maintain, from the fuel/energy they run on, to the factories that produce the replacement parts they need and the tools to install them. Biological life can survive with no infrastructure, e.g. in hunter-gatherer situations. If a biological being crash-lands on a primitive world, they can probably survive once they figure out which local flora and fauna are edible to them. A droid will run out of energy because it can't find an outlet to plug into.

I think you're approaching the question from a pre-biased position and casting all comparisons in a favorable light.

In this case, first of all, you're making the assumption that support for mechanicals is objectively more expensive to maintain than that of a biological, which is at best debatable and at worst completely false. True, there is a need for fuel/energy, but unlike our world, the SW galaxy does not seem to feel any sort of a fuel or energy scarcity at all, except in specific and highly localized conditions. Where fuel costs are a significant expense of ownership of any vehicle (likely the second largest cost for a newer vehicle next to the cost of the vehicle itself, and often *the* biggest cost for a vehicle with a longer life) it's a simple afterthought for most vehicles in the SW galaxy, hardly worth mentioning. Indeed, small portable fusion generators are fairly common and effectively provide an unlimited source of power for small devices and droids.

Contrast this to a biological that has needs, in most cases requiring high levels of development, that range from (for humans) breatheable air, potable water, food (and a balanced diet at that), and sanitation. Each of these requires specific provisions, and their consumption is constant and, given the size of the individual, required in large amounts. Even assuming that air is freely available (not a given in SW and if it isn't the droid is by far more equipped to survive), a human will die after 5-10 days without water. Take a normally operating droid, and, without outside interference, they can run on their own internal reserves for, at the very least 5-10 months. Let's move the goalpost once again and assume that breathable air and potable water are convenient and unlimited (which, for anyone with survival training would be a manageable situation from that point on), there's still a need for food. Even using your hunter-gatherer, their whole existence is devoted to hunting and gathering, basically devoting all of their energies to subsistence. Indeed it was the development of agriculture that allowed primitive man to settle down in one place, produce enough food to feed themselves plus have some leftover, and ultimately gave him the free time to work on things like simple machines like the wheel, social developments like towns, and other "evolved" accomplishments. So if your surviving is depending on hunting and gathering, it's a subsistence existence. The droid, aside from generally freely available energy, wants for little, and is capable of working on improvements and other pursuits in place of securing food.

Similarly, biological beings are much better at self-repair. They have a thorough covering to protect their vital bits from the environment, solid defenses at the necessary openings to keep unwanted material from getting in, and the ability to repair holes in said covering provided sufficient energy inputs. A droid has cracks and seams in their chassis and limited ability to keep stuff out of them or expel stuff that finds its way in. 3PO and R2 need some outside TLC or an oil bath if they want to get all the sand out of their joints and circuits, and a hole it a droid's chassis stays there until someone patches it. Cells degrade, but can replace themselves, while metal corrodes and needs replacements that come from elsewhere.

Again, I think you're approaching this from a position of seeing what you want to see because it supports your position.

First off, "self-repair" and "preventative/defensive measures" are two distinctly different factors. While skin is certainly a great defense against many possible health concerns, many are concerns that droids don't have to worry about (airborne pathogens, temperature extremes, etc.). Further, skin is often an incomplete defense, except in the most clement of environments, necessitating additional clothing and shelter, which are both processed products again requiring a support base.

Then there's "self-repair"...this is biological healing, first-aid, and treatment of any other physical issues, while for a droid it's mechanical repairs and software diagnostics. For most minor issues, the droid would be able to not only perform replacement/repair procedures on itself, but more importantly, would be able to accurately self-diagnose. That human gets an awful abdominal pain, how do they know if they've got a ruptured spleen or some gas? Which brings up a salient point: the things that can go wrong in a biological process are as complicated and limitless as the cells in their body, whereas the things that can go wrong with a droid are fairly limited in comparison.

True, a harsh environment like a desert will wear down a droid to the point that they require repairs in short order, but in the same environment, given the same resources, the human fares far, far worse. The extreme heat during the day and cold at night will sap their energy reserves, the heat and dryness will require even more water (which is terribly scarce), and their skin will burn, chafe, and blister within days without clothing or shelter (but by the time it starts to get really bad, it won't matter because they'll be dying of thirst). Meanwhile, our droid sees a lot of degradation in fine moving parts, but has no need of water, no internal body temperature to maintain, no food needed, and is more or less totally impervious to as much light and heat as the sun wants to shine down on it.

And it is true that healthy cells degrade overall more slowly than metal corrodes (in some environments), but it's equally important to remember that a droid isn't going to contract an infection that will start a process counter to healing, and that while some environmental impacts (like grit) will be of more concern to a droid than a human, there are others (like temperature) that are of far less concern (any temp extreme that would give a droid cause for concern would be lethal to a human). And while it's true that any damage to a droid will need to be addressed by repair as opposed to healing, in most environments, a human will still need clothing...which will be subject to the same challenges.

(And yes, I know that the RPG rules allow droids to heal "naturally" due to automated self-repair systems, but that's more of game rule contrivance to keep a level playing field than something we see reflected in the universe. It doesn't matter how long HK-47 spends "resting" on Tattooine, he's not going to repair those connections to his lost memory banks without outside intervention.)

Completely agreed.

For that reason, I wouldn't say droids have "vampire-level" immortality, because a droid sitting around deactivated for long enough will rust and corrode until it is unsalvageable. I mean, you could completely clean out the insides and put new parts in, but then we're not even talking about a Theseus's ship situation, we're talking about building a new being in another one's corpse.

Agreed on the first point, but not the second.

If you want to use the "new being in another body" argument, you must also factor in cell replacement in humans. While it's true that many brain cells will have a lifespan of many decades, others last mere days, or even hours before dying, being flushed out with waste, and replaced with new. It doesn't seem fair to fault a droid for getting replacement parts, even all of the "body" parts, with the same memory core, but to give the human a pass because the parts are too small to see with the naked eye and get replaced in a less discrete fashion.

And if you're going to compare life spans between droids and organics in the context of Star Wars, then you also have to take into account that there are biological species like Anzat and Gen'Dai which have life spans measured in millennia. The only droid I know of who can compete with that is HK-47, who seems to be a pretty big outlier in the Star Wars universe.

Without sufficient data relating to the physiology of various long-lived species, I don't think it's rationally feasible to include them in such a discussion. This extended life may simply be due to better genetic transcription (a more efficient memory core), a more robust body, or any number of other factors. It may require disproportionately more resources, or be predicated upon some specific macguffin (do the anzati require feeding on other sentient beings to attain their long lifespan?). Ultimately, we don't know enough about how other species work to make a meaningful comparison (unless you do, in which case, that could be a very interesting discussion...).

That being said, there's absolutely no competition in terms of potential lifespan, given the "software" nature of a droid's non-physical characteristics. We've seen that a droid's system can be downloaded, saved, moved, transmitted, uploaded, and used across computer networks in various bodies. Based on that evidence, any droid with access to a data network would be effectively immortal.

Ultimately, I think it really comes down to a few key factors: the situation into which you're placing our theoretical being and droid, the specific model of droid, and the resources they have access to. In *any* modern civilized area, the droid has the edge. In any sort of hostile environment in which resources are limited, it then becomes a question of which resources are limited. In some scenarios, the resources that are limited may favor the human, but in others they will favor the droid...and in some, both will be affected equally. In this case, I think the only fair comparisons are to have similar subjective challenges for each individual as opposed to one resource (as a lack of spare parts means nothing to a human and a lot to a droid, but the lack of water means nothing to the droid but a lot to the human)...and in that sort of scenario, droids tend to be able to survive far longer without a resupply of their various needs than any human.

Also data storage doesn't actually seem to have a limit in star wars unlike in real life.

You have a source on that? I'd argue that given astromechs and ships have limited capacity to store hyperspace routes, we do in fact have storage limitations.

I would also argue that while there seems to be the perception that technology doesn't change, subtle cues throughout canon material indicate that technology does in fact change, even within the lifetime of main characters!

I do not, it's admittedly an assumption based on personally never seeing the issue come up. C3PO can store how many languages in his tiny memory core? If it's not unlimited it may be "effectively" unlimited.

That said I've never heard of having limited storage of hyperspace routes, limited access yes, as they change extremely often and need to be constantly updated not only for your specific point of entry, but for every celestial body en route.

I'm also not a master of the EU so if this actually has been a thing somewhere I'll happily accept that.

Also data storage doesn't actually seem to have a limit in star wars unlike in real life.

You have a source on that? I'd argue that given astromechs and ships have limited capacity to store hyperspace routes, we do in fact have storage limitations.

I would also argue that while there seems to be the perception that technology doesn't change, subtle cues throughout canon material indicate that technology does in fact change, even within the lifetime of main characters!

I do not, it's admittedly an assumption based on personally never seeing the issue come up. C3PO can store how many languages in his tiny memory core? If it's not unlimited it may be "effectively" unlimited.

That said I've never heard of having limited storage of hyperspace routes, limited access yes, as they change extremely often and need to be constantly updated not only for your specific point of entry, but for every celestial body en route.

I'm also not a master of the EU so if this actually has been a thing somewhere I'll happily accept that.

Eh, I'm no EU-meister myself. I just thought you had read something I hadn't!

For that reason, I wouldn't say droids have "vampire-level" immortality, because a droid sitting around deactivated for long enough will rust and corrode until it is unsalvageable. I mean, you could completely clean out the insides and put new parts in, but then we're not even talking about a Theseus's ship situation, we're talking about building a new being in another one's corpse.

Agreed on the first point, but not the second.

If you want to use the "new being in another body" argument, you must also factor in cell replacement in humans. While it's true that many brain cells will have a lifespan of many decades, others last mere days, or even hours before dying, being flushed out with waste, and replaced with new. It doesn't seem fair to fault a droid for getting replacement parts, even all of the "body" parts, with the same memory core, but to give the human a pass because the parts are too small to see with the naked eye and get replaced in a less discrete fashion.

Without sufficient data relating to the physiology of various long-lived species, I don't think it's rationally feasible to include them in such a discussion. This extended life may simply be due to better genetic transcription (a more efficient memory core), a more robust body, or any number of other factors. It may require disproportionately more resources, or be predicated upon some specific macguffin (do the anzati require feeding on other sentient beings to attain their long lifespan?). Ultimately, we don't know enough about how other species work to make a meaningful comparison (unless you do, in which case, that could be a very interesting discussion...).

That being said, there's absolutely no competition in terms of potential lifespan, given the "software" nature of a droid's non-physical characteristics. We've seen that a droid's system can be downloaded, saved, moved, transmitted, uploaded, and used across computer networks in various bodies. Based on that evidence, any droid with access to a data network would be effectively immortal.

At this point we're getting into philosophical questions about continuity. The Theseus's ship analogy usually focuses on parts being slowly replaced over time, and I think it breaks down when you're replacing most or all of a droid's parts at once due to corrosion. My point is that if a computer is left to rot for long enough without maintenance, most of the inner parts will be rendered unusable, and if I'm taking an old desktop case and replacing the motherboard, CPU, and hard drives all at once, then I don't think you can meaningfully call it the same computer. Thus, I would not characterize a deactivated droid the same way as a vampire's stasis.

Similarly, with the software proposition, there's room for debate. If I make a backup copy of C-3PO's software, then disintegrate the physical C-3PO, build a new protocol droid chassis, and download that backup into it, have I "resurrected" the "same" C-3PO or just created a very accurate replica? How much data can we lose to bad sectors on the hard drive before the software does not sufficiently resemble the original?

ETA: And as far as the physiology of long-lived species goes, my understanding of the Gen'Dai at least is that they have superb natural healing and are not subject to genetic degradation of aging. At any rate, if we're talking about fictional robots with the assumption that their software and hardware is directly analogous to our real world computers and robots, I think it's only fair to take into account the fictional biological beings who's biology and physiology is presumably directly analogous to real world organic beings.

I think it breaks down when you're replacing most or all of a droid's parts at once due to corrosion. My point is that if a computer is left to rot for long enough without maintenance, most of the inner parts will be rendered unusable

...and I think you're making a biased assumption to suit your position.

Again, if you're going to stack the deck against a droid by putting them in an environment that would corrode them for a duration that would allow for all of their parts to corrode beyond use, you've got to place your hypothetical human in those same conditions, with those same provisions.

If you place a human (with no special survival skills) in a salt marsh with a droid (with no special survival programming/equipment...but keep in mind that a standard R2 unit is apparently capable of complete immersion in a swamp), with no resources for support (no spare parts, protective coatings, power, etc. but also no food, fresh water, clothing, etc.) it is unreasonable to believe that the droid will rust away into oblivion before the human dies.

I'm not saying that a droid body will last forever in any environment, only that the droid body is far more resilient and capable of protecting it's core programming than a human body is capable of preserving the life it holds.

Similarly, with the software proposition, there's room for debate. If I make a backup copy of C-3PO's software, then disintegrate the physical C-3PO, build a new protocol droid chassis, and download that backup into it, have I "resurrected" the "same" C-3PO or just created a very accurate replica? How much data can we lose to bad sectors on the hard drive before the software does not sufficiently resemble the original?

Well that's two very different questions.

The first, as has been said, is the classic Ship of Thesus thought experiment, with answers and arguments since it was first proposed.

The second, first of all, implies that the memory in the SW galaxy degrades in a similar fashion to our own (which I'd have to see some proof of before accepting that premise), but even at that, it's a wholly subjective question with no right or wrong answer based on your use of the word "sufficiently". Sufficiently for what? For the droid to power up and function? If so, that dictates that your primary (possibly sole) criterion for resemblance is if the droid does, in fact, power up. It's a moving target, and one that, once defined, answers the question in its very definition.

ETA: And as far as the physiology of long-lived species goes, my understanding of the Gen'Dai at least is that they have superb natural healing and are not subject to genetic degradation of aging. At any rate, if we're talking about fictional robots with the assumption that their software and hardware is directly analogous to our real world computers and robots, I think it's only fair to take into account the fictional biological beings who's biology and physiology is presumably directly analogous to real world organic beings.

Those are two assumptions that not only do I not make, but I also reject in terms of a valid platform for a position in the question asked in this thread. In fact, allowing droids to be interpreted as being vulnerable to similar environmental impacts to similar degrees as modern mechanical creations is a significant concession that's really not supported by what we see in the films, which shows a level of droid tech that is more advanced and robust than anything in as-common use in the real world. It would be reasonable to suggest that an R2 unit has internals that are fully sealed as to be impervious to all environmental factors. At that point, the debate is pretty much over, as the R2 could, in theory, stay shut down in any environment anywhere that humans are capable of living, and last more or less indefinitely, barring accident. Certainly far longer than any human lifespan.

Further, your second assumption is fundamentally flawed. You're saying that a creature whose physiology gives it biological characteristics drastically different from humans can be safely assumed to have a physiology that is largely similar to humans. While this assumption *may* hold true for some near human or humanoid races, I don't think you can make the same argument for the Gen'dai, who Wookieepedia describes as follows:

"the Gen'Dai were virtually a formless jumble of corded muscle and nerve bundles"

"The only distinct feature of the Gen'Dai were their heads"

"Lacking the vulnerable vital organs of most species, including hearts, and lungs"

" they could regrow lost limbs or other body parts in only a few minutes.^[2] Unlike most species, Gen'Dai had a nervous system which was distributed throughout the body in the form of millions of nerve clusters"

"the Gen'Dai did not possess a heart, their circulatory system functioned by way of a series of capillaries and muscular contractions which pushed blood through the body"

Then you have the Anzati:

"They were an extremely long-lived species, also possessing regenerative capabilities beyond those of the average humanoid."

"they had no natural biorhythm; that is to say, no pulse, and as a result, no body heat. Therefore, it was a total mystery as to how their circulatory system functioned.^[2]"

^"While Anzati tended to possess exceptional might and often startling reflexes, at best, they could reflect thrice that of a pinnacle Human's athletic ability; at worst, they merely had the attributes of an ordinary Human."

While there's no accounting for subjectivity, to me, this is enough to suggest that both of these species had a physiology drastically different from that of a human, and as such, any discussion of a droid's effective lifespan compared to one of these species is a discussion completely separate from the one proposed here.

While there's no accounting for subjectivity, to me, this is enough to suggest that both of these species had a physiology drastically different from that of a human, and as such, any discussion of a droid's effective lifespan compared to one of these species is a discussion completely separate from the one proposed here.

Whoever said we were only comparing humans to droids? DScipio's statement was about biological life in general, not humans specifically. In the universe of Star Wars, there are living beings who can live longer than most droids, suggesting that organic life, at least within the confines of the Star Wars universe, is able to more effectively maintain itself relative to droids.

At any rate, we've gotten far from the original question. If we accept your framework, then droids certainly have the potential to be immortal. Any droid who creates a sufficiently large number copies of itself can live until galactic civilization collapses from lack of resources, if you consider it to be alive as long as any of its copies are alive. Even if every active copy is destroyed, it returns to life if anyone ever finds a backup of its software and downloads it into a body (pulling an HK-47, as it were). In that framework, any droid is potentially immortal, though few if any seem to approach this.

On the other hand, if you do not consider a copy of a droid to be identical being but rather its own individual with a shared history (so no making backups of yourself to cheat death) and you consider it possible that a droid can suffer irreparable damage to its core from a lack of maintenance, then their immortality is questionable at best.

Less questionable and more a different quality of immortality. That would put them on par with elves. /With/ proper maintenance, and barring accidents or physical trauma, immortal. Ie best case scenario.

Less questionable and more a different quality of immortality. That would put them on par with elves. /With/ proper maintenance, and barring accidents or physical trauma, immortal. Ie best case scenario.

The only reason I keep a question mark next to it is that the theoretical immortality of droids raises some questions. Mainly, where are all the ancient droids? Droids are mass produced across the galaxy, with millions (if not billions) rolling off the assembly line each month. We're talking about mass-produced sentient machines with a potentially indefinite service life, so why aren't there more droids that have been passed down as heirlooms through the centuries in families? It implies that droids have an astronomical mortality rate, which suggests to me that either droids are far less durable than we've assumed, or obsolescence is still a significant factor despite the technological stagnation of the Star Wars universe.

We're talking about mass-produced sentient machines with a potentially indefinite service life, so why aren't there more droids that have been passed down as heirlooms through the centuries in families? It implies that droids have an astronomical mortality rate, which suggests to me that either droids are far less durable than we've assumed, or obsolescence is still a significant factor despite the technological stagnation of the Star Wars universe.

Or...the costs associated with repair and upkeep beyond the basics are not economically attractive when compared to replacing them.

Essentially, the automation, economy of scale, quality controls, process control, and distribution network of a galaxy-spanning droid production company are so advanced that it'd cost the average citizen more in terms of time, parts, and training to repair a droid vs. scrapping it and buying a new one. This could also be a part of the business model for a droid production company: offer new models at a low margin, offer parts but at a crazy markup. Similar to how you can get printers now for cheap, but the ink is what makes the printer company the money.

So to use a rough analogy: it'd be like having a car in a world where fuel is free (or so close to free as to not be a significant factor in a buying decision). The next biggest recurring maintenance costs for ownership would likely be oil changes, brakes, and tires. If you're a car company in this situation, the best thing you can do is to make and sell your cars at a low markup, but have proprietary oil (likely a closed system that requires specialized tools and equipment to change), and proprietary brakes and tires (and really, all the rest of the parts as well)...which you may or may not sell, but if you do, you're gouging any buyer of them, to the point that many customers find it easier to use a car till it begins to fail, then just buy a new one.

Planned obsolescence isn't necessarily tech dependent, but just because it's a factor in the business model doesn't necessarily mean it's a factor in strict survival terms.