81 replies to this topic

[abolitionist]

there is no attachment to "immortalism", now you're trying to use muscle to silence a debate

No, I didn't mean to be taken that way. The debate is worth having.

The problem is that variation and selection of replicators strongly favors the urge to reproduce. For humans, this means that desires for children, virtues of children, importance of posterity, etc., is a deep part of human culture. The apparent conflict between indefinite lifespans and reproduction is a major source of negative reaction to the idea of lifespan extension. People are wired by evolution to literally prefer death over not reproducing. I believe that advocacy of government control of reproduction because of (incorrectly) perceived incompatibility between indefinite lifespans and reproduction is a reinforcement of a deep emotional backlash that life extension already faces. It's not necessary.

I agree it's not neccesary due to longevity treatments yet, however in some parts of the world we clearly need to prevent procreation

like Africa or China where they haven't been able to feed and provide medical treatment for their babies, give them AIDS, and many are born into slums and only see profound suffering in life - it's disgusting

if people can't stop f__ing in those situations - somebody will have to prevent it

and even here in the states we have all kinds of unwanted pregnancies, refusal to undergo genetic screening even when there is strong predispostion or risk for a screenable disease
people that aren't fit to take care of themselves, let along children, etc...

there are many reasons to demand preimplantation genetic screening and procreational licenses for human beings

it's the rights of those we create vs some desire to screw as we please - the rights of those we create are clearly more important than mere procreational convenience or 'pride of ownership' for careless adults

screw their discomfort with the idea - human beings deserve to be created well - that's the very least we can do for our future fodder

Edited by abolitionist, 02 December 2008 - 12:21 AM.

[abolitionist]

it's time we grant rights to those we create before they are designed

it's not some GOD that creates us, we create people through genetic roulette and it's time we owned up to the responsibility

would any of us want to be created into squalor or with a genetic disease, or incurable disease like AIDS, to grow up knowing only starvation or abuse and neglect due to uncaring parents?

think about how you would want to be created

Edited by abolitionist, 02 December 2008 - 12:24 AM.

[abolitionist]

there is no attachment to "immortalism", now you're trying to use muscle to silence a debate

No, I didn't mean to be taken that way. The debate is worth having.

The problem is that variation and selection of replicators strongly favors the urge to reproduce. For humans, this means that desires for children, virtues of children, importance of posterity, etc., is a deep part of human culture. The apparent conflict between indefinite lifespans and reproduction is a major source of negative reaction to the idea of lifespan extension. People are wired by evolution to literally prefer death over not reproducing. I believe that advocacy of government control of reproduction because of (incorrectly) perceived incompatibility between indefinite lifespans and reproduction is a reinforcement of a deep emotional backlash that life extension already faces. It's not necessary.

people desire to have sex, having children is sociological

many people forego procreation and even sex altogether to be happier and do more important things

we can't even support our current population or curb our pollution, it's tempting to say that science will provide us with the means in the future but we can't count on that

[cyborgdreamer]

The fact that careless parents can mess up their children's lives is a symptom of a greater problem; namely, that we're a assigned a genome at conception and are stuck with it for the rest of our lives. We need a way for fully formed people to improve and repair their phenotypes by choice. That way, you can eliminate genetically induced misery without limiting parent's reproductive freedom.

[niner]

The fact that careless parents can mess up their children's lives is a symptom of a greater problem; namely, that we're a assigned a genome at conception and are stuck with it for the rest of our lives. We need a way for fully formed people to improve and repair their phenotypes by choice. That way, you can eliminate genetically induced misery without limiting parent's reproductive freedom.

I guess if we actually had such technology, and it was affordable by all, then that would be one solution, but I can't help thinking that there has to be a happy medium that lies somewhere between irresponsible genetic roulette and fascism.

[s123]

It would be great if the majority of people would vote yes but I don't think that we need this to prevent overpopulation. I'm working on a model for looking at how the population would change if people would life significantly longer than now. I don't have the details yet but if we stay below two children per family than we should be safe.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I know that this is an unpopular and bitterly contested opinion in some circles-- and especially transhumanist circles-- but I believe that reproduction is part of the purpose of all living beings, and that everyone who does not have a compelling eugenic reason not to reproduce should seek to do so. Our consumerist culture, which teaches us that children are a dreadful burden on our resources and lifestyle-- instead of a blessing and an honor for our families-- is sick and suicidal and broken, and not even our most advanced technologies can save it.

Overpopulation is not a concern; inefficient distribution of resources is. Those pictures of starving children in Africa are horrific, but the truly horrific thing is not that there isn't enough food for them-- but that there is so much food that people in the West are burning it rather than giving it to them. They are not starving because there is no food, they are starving because of economics; if you were to eradicate 10% of the human population, selected from industrial and urban centers (to avoid hitting agricultural workers), you would actually cause mass famine rather than reduce it.

Of course, if you're all still so concerned with overpopulation, I could always offer to make you a deal: for every child I have, I'll kill two adults and adopt their children. Hell, I'll even let you pick the victims, as long as my own family is exempt.

[cyborgdreamer]

I know that this is an unpopular and bitterly contested opinion in some circles-- and especially transhumanist circles-- but I believe that reproduction is part of the purpose of all living beings, and that everyone who does not have a compelling eugenic reason not to reproduce should seek to do so. Our consumerist culture, which teaches us that children are a dreadful burden on our resources and lifestyle-- instead of a blessing and an honor for our families-- is sick and suicidal and broken, and not even our most advanced technologies can save it.

Overpopulation is not a concern; inefficient distribution of resources is. Those pictures of starving children in Africa are horrific, but the truly horrific thing is not that there isn't enough food for them-- but that there is so much food that people in the West are burning it rather than giving it to them. They are not starving because there is no food, they are starving because of economics; if you were to eradicate 10% of the human population, selected from industrial and urban centers (to avoid hitting agricultural workers), you would actually cause mass famine rather than reduce it.

Of course, if you're all still so concerned with overpopulation, I could always offer to make you a deal: for every child I have, I'll kill two adults and adopt their children. Hell, I'll even let you pick the victims, as long as my own family is exempt.

Why should someone have children if they don't want to be a parent? It isn't as if the human race is going extinct anytime soon. You seem to be equating the choice not to have children with killing people.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Why should someone have children if they don't want to be a parent?

I'm not trying to argue that they should, but people who do not want to have children should examine their motives-- this is a fundamentally unhealthy desire, in contradiction to human instinct, and the fact that some people are promoting so heavily shows that something very serious has gone wrong with society.

It isn't as if the human race is going extinct anytime soon. You seem to be equating the choice not to have children with killing people.

I would not go that far. But it is antisocial, and it is, in a fashion, a form of suicide. People who do not raise children are terminating their lineage; they are contributing to the death of their culture, their beliefs and their values.

[cyborgdreamer]

Why should someone have children if they don't want to be a parent?

I'm not trying to argue that they should, but people who do not want to have children should examine their motives-- this is a fundamentally unhealthy desire, in contradiction to human instinct, and the fact that some people are promoting so heavily shows that something very serious has gone wrong with society.

Actually, I don't think we have an instinct to have children as separate from our sex drive (or if we do, it's not a very strong instinct). And I don't see anyone here promoting childlessness as a way of life. However, I do think that people should be socially responsible in their decision to reproduce. Creating a new person is a huge responsibility. You have to think about how that affects the people who already exist as well as whether you can give that child the best life possible.

It isn't as if the human race is going extinct anytime soon. You seem to be equating the choice not to have children with killing people.

I would not go that far. But it is antisocial, and it is, in a fashion, a form of suicide. People who do not raise children are terminating their lineage; they are contributing to the death of their culture, their beliefs and their values.

You're only contributing to the death of certain gene combinations. You can still share your culture, beliefs and values with other people and by extention, their children. Or you can adopt a child. Just becuase you don't replicate your genes doesn't mean you don't have a stake in our future.

Edited by cyborgdreamer, 04 December 2008 - 01:04 AM.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Actually, I don't think we have an instinct to have children as separate from our sex drive (or if we do, it's not a very strong instinct).

I will agree that it's not as strong an instinct as the sex drive. But I think a number of factors relating both to the sex drive and emotional responses to infants strongly suggest that there is an instinct toward procreation, as does the predominance of bearing natural children instead of adopting. I would even argue that the belief that one's biological children are more "real" than adopted children and vice versa-- a belief I find alien and morally repugnant-- is rooted in this instinct.

And I don't see anyone here promoting childlessness as a way of life.

It is a very short step from here to there, and I have seen how powerful this sentiment is in many transhumanist circles. There might not be anyone saying it right now, but I can guarantee that several are thinking it. Even those who do not promote childlessness tend to view having fewer children as superior to more.

However, I do think that people should be socially responsible in their decision to reproduce. Creating a new person is a huge responsibility. You have to think about how that affects the people who already exist as well as whether you can give that child the best life possible.

This I shall agree with entirely. I just believe that ZPG and NPG movements are going about this in misguided fashion, and that they are in fact doing more harm than good. Our problem is not population growth or "too many children"; it is the consumerist lifestyles and attitudes that childlessness and small nuclear families promote and enable. People don't have fewer children so that they can lavish more time and attention upon them, nor to provide better nutrition and education, but so that they can afford more toys and nicer clothes for them. This is the message being hammered home by our media, and I believe that this is what you are implying by "the best life possible", intentionally or otherwise.

I want my family to have the best life possible, and in general I want this for everyone. And to me, this means having a larger family, not a smaller one, and spending as much time with my children, and my nieces and nephews, as possible. This is what provides a better life for children, and what better prepares them for life as a healthy adult.

You're only contributing to the death of certain gene combinations. You can still share your culture, beliefs and values with other people and by extention, their children. Or you can adopt a child. Just becuase you don't replicate your genes doesn't mean you don't have a stake in our future.

This is the Immortality Institute; even though I might disagree, and disagree strongly, with someone's views, I honestly believe that everyone here has a stake in our future, and is honestly promoting those ideas which they believe will create a better future for themselves and society. What I'm concerned about is not that the people here have no stake in the future, no motivation to work for its betterment, but that they are surrendering their influence over it-- mostly in favor of people who have no concern for the future at all, whether out of irresponsibility or ideologically-driven disregard.

[cyborgdreamer]

Actually, I don't think we have an instinct to have children as separate from our sex drive (or if we do, it's not a very strong instinct).

I will agree that it's not as strong an instinct as the sex drive. But I think a number of factors relating both to the sex drive and emotional responses to infants strongly suggest that there is an instinct toward procreation, as does the predominance of bearing natural children instead of adopting. I would even argue that the belief that one's biological children are more "real" than adopted children and vice versa-- a belief I find alien and morally repugnant-- is rooted in this instinct.

You have a point. However, the instinct isn't so strong that those who forego reproduction necessarily become repressed and/or unhappy.

And I don't see anyone here promoting childlessness as a way of life.

It is a very short step from here to there, and I have seen how powerful this sentiment is in many transhumanist circles. There might not be anyone saying it right now, but I can guarantee that several are thinking it. Even those who do not promote childlessness tend to view having fewer children as superior to more.

Yes, that does seem to be a predominate position around here. I suspect its because of concerns about overpopulation and possibly an emotional disdain for the human life-cycle/ evolutionary process. I myself am a bit distraught over the idea of creating life knowing they will one day die.

However, I do think that people should be socially responsible in their decision to reproduce. Creating a new person is a huge responsibility. You have to think about how that affects the people who already exist as well as whether you can give that child the best life possible.

This I shall agree with entirely. I just believe that ZPG and NPG movements are going about this in misguided fashion, and that they are in fact doing more harm than good. Our problem is not population growth or "too many children"; it is the consumerist lifestyles and attitudes that childlessness and small nuclear families promote and enable. People don't have fewer children so that they can lavish more time and attention upon them, nor to provide better nutrition and education, but so that they can afford more toys and nicer clothes for them. This is the message being hammered home by our media, and I believe that this is what you are implying by "the best life possible", intentionally or otherwise.

But you have to admit, we will run out of resources if the population continues to grow exponentially, no matter what social reforms come about. Also, on the off chance that humans literally become immortal, we'll eventually have to stop reproducing (unless the universe can support infinitely many people).

I want my family to have the best life possible, and in general I want this for everyone. And to me, this means having a larger family, not a smaller one, and spending as much time with my children, and my nieces and nephews, as possible. This is what provides a better life for children, and what better prepares them for life as a healthy adult.

That may work for you and your family, but you can't make a blanket statement about all children. A shy child who needs a lot of personal space might be much happier in a small family.

You're only contributing to the death of certain gene combinations. You can still share your culture, beliefs and values with other people and by extention, their children. Or you can adopt a child. Just becuase you don't replicate your genes doesn't mean you don't have a stake in our future.

This is the Immortality Institute; even though I might disagree, and disagree strongly, with someone's views, I honestly believe that everyone here has a stake in our future, and is honestly promoting those ideas which they believe will create a better future for themselves and society. What I'm concerned about is not that the people here have no stake in the future, no motivation to work for its betterment, but that they are surrendering their influence over it-- mostly in favor of people who have no concern for the future at all, whether out of irresponsibility or ideologically-driven disregard.

Do parents have much more influence over the future than non-parents? Children don't necessarily take on the views of their parents, after all. How many of us had immortalist parents?

[Korimyr the Rat]

Yes, that does seem to be a predominate position around here. I suspect its because of concerns about overpopulation and possibly an emotional disdain for the human life-cycle/ evolutionary process. I myself am a bit distraught over the idea of creating life knowing they will one day die.

Strange position, for someone who isn't convinced that he himself will ever die.

I myself do not fear death, or lament the fact that one way or another I will someday die; I cling to this life because I have obligations, to my living family and to my ancestors, that I have not yet fulfilled and because my life is still full of passion and purpose. The prospect of immortality appeals to me because it will give me so many more years in which to improve myself, to bring honor to myself and my family, and to pursue my passions-- and ensure that my death, when it comes, comes quickly and when I am at the peak of my abilities.

And I cannot comprehend how someone can disdain the evolutionary process, when it holds the promise that our children could be so much greater than ourselves, especially now that we are at the cusp of finally being able to control the course of our evolution.

But you have to admit, we will run out of resources if the population continues to grow exponentially, no matter what social reforms come about. Also, on the off chance that humans literally become immortal, we'll eventually have to stop reproducing (unless the universe can support infinitely many people).

The universe cannot support infinitely many people... but it will not exist for infinitely many years, either. When I consider the population of Earth, compared to its mass, and then consider the mass of even our solar system, I see little reason to fear overpopulation. The Earth alone can support many, many times the current human population and we are far from using its resources efficiently.

Of course, there is no question that if human beings become effectively immortal, we will have to spread beyond the confines of a single planet. On the other hand, shouldn't we be working toward that goal anyway? Immortality means nothing if our lives can be cut short by an astronomical freak accident.

Do parents have much more influence over the future than non-parents? Children don't necessarily take on the views of their parents, after all. How many of us had immortalist parents?

Yes, they really do. The most reliable predictor of a person's political or religious affiliation is their parents'. And I know that all of those Heinlein novels, which led me to my transhumanist ideals, were first placed in my hands by my father-- though there was little else upon which we agreed.

It is perhaps true that most of us did not have immortalist parents... but I would dare say that the vast majority of us were raised in homes that respected the values of science and reason.

[cyborgdreamer]

Yes, that does seem to be a predominate position around here. I suspect its because of concerns about overpopulation and possibly an emotional disdain for the human life-cycle/ evolutionary process. I myself am a bit distraught over the idea of creating life knowing they will one day die.

Strange position, for someone who isn't convinced that he himself will ever die.

First of all, I'm a woman so I'd appreciate it if you'd describe me with female pronouns. And there's a big difference between hope and belief. As much as I want/need/hope to live forever, I don't dare estimate the probability of it actually happening.

I myself do not fear death, or lament the fact that one way or another I will someday die; I cling to this life because I have obligations, to my living family and to my ancestors, that I have not yet fulfilled and because my life is still full of passion and purpose. The prospect of immortality appeals to me because it will give me so many more years in which to improve myself, to bring honor to myself and my family, and to pursue my passions-- and ensure that my death, when it comes, comes quickly and when I am at the peak of my abilities.

And I cannot comprehend how someone can disdain the evolutionary process, when it holds the promise that our children could be so much greater than ourselves, especially now that we are at the cusp of finally being able to control the course of our evolution.

These things are subjective, really. Though personally, I think it's horrible that (at least before we had the chance to control it) evolution only works because weaker people and animals die.

But you have to admit, we will run out of resources if the population continues to grow exponentially, no matter what social reforms come about. Also, on the off chance that humans literally become immortal, we'll eventually have to stop reproducing (unless the universe can support infinitely many people).

The universe cannot support infinitely many people... but it will not exist for infinitely many years, either. When I consider the population of Earth, compared to its mass, and then consider the mass of even our solar system, I see little reason to fear overpopulation. The Earth alone can support many, many times the current human population and we are far from using its resources efficiently.

Of course, there is no question that if human beings become effectively immortal, we will have to spread beyond the confines of a single planet. On the other hand, shouldn't we be working toward that goal anyway? Immortality means nothing if our lives can be cut short by an astronomical freak accident.

We still have to make sure we don't reproduce faster than our society expands.

Do parents have much more influence over the future than non-parents? Children don't necessarily take on the views of their parents, after all. How many of us had immortalist parents?

Yes, they really do. The most reliable predictor of a person's political or religious affiliation is their parents'. And I know that all of those Heinlein novels, which led me to my transhumanist ideals, were first placed in my hands by my father-- though there was little else upon which we agreed.

It is perhaps true that most of us did not have immortalist parents... but I would dare say that the vast majority of us were raised in homes that respected the values of science and reason.

You have a point but I still think there are other ways to contribute even if you don't want children. For example, you could be a scientist who researches cures for diseases or you could be a teacher who spreads knowledge to other people's children.

[Danail Bulgaria]

I am sorry, that I am interrupting Your conversation, but I think, that all who posted so far missed something of great importance while discussing these topics. Moreover the option, that I think, that is the most correct is not even placed in the voting options at the beginning of this topic. The coorect answer according to me is to apply the one child policy ONLY in the countries, that lead the world to overpopulation, and to stimulate the birth rate ONLY in the countries with a negative population growth. It is all about balance.

The life length has nothing to do with overpopulation. It is the uncontrollable birth rate, that leads to overpopulation. This is a fact, that is known from a long long time. If You see the average life length by country in a list and if You compare it with the list of the birth rates by country, You will see, that the countries with the smallest average life length have the highest birth rates. The opposite, the countries with the highest average life length have the smallest birth rate. So, please do not speak, that we must not make our lifes longer, we must STOP the UNCONTROLLED reproduction.

The uncontrolled reproduction is mostly common in Africa and India. This, according to me is one of the reasons for the starvation of the people in some places in Africa. The government of each african country must know how many people the country can support. This number of people must not be exceeded. It is not natural and normal a country, that, for example can support 5 milion people with its resources, to have 25 milion people population. (I am using an imaginative country only to get myself clear) How do You expect there not to be hunger there? How do You expect there not to be people dying from luck of food and medications? The fact, that the people in these countries are not controlling their birth rates are ALONE doing themselves all the inhumane thngs, that they complain of.

On the other side are the countries in Europe, USA and Russia. There is no starvation and death from hunger at the present time in this countries. There there is an another concern. The populations of these countries has started on the way of the decreasing of the population. So, the birth rate in these countries must be stimulated. These countries have the potential to support more people, than those, who are living there.

The key is this balance: the number of people living on the earth versus the number of people, that the earth can support. This balance must not be destroyed. Both - overpopulating and less - populating are problems. These problems are different in the different countries and the reactions to them must be different in the different countries.

Furthermore, there are certain groups of people in each country, that overpopulate or less - populate in one and the same country itself. These groups (most often etnical) must also be controlled differently. The overpopulating from them must be suppressed, and the less - populating from them must be stimulated to increase their birth rate.

[Luminosity]

There's no real way to enforce limits on child bearing outside of fascism, but if I could I would make people get a license to have children. If I was giving them out, only about of a third of the population would qualify.

[Droplet]

I can understand people having children although I dislike them and I'm not having them. I have nothing against people having children if they can afford to and they're going to look after them correctly. What I really hate is people who have children to get benefits and/or because as someone already mentioned, as a sort of "ownership pride." Only reason you should have a child is because you truly care about raising a little human and are prepared to put in the work.

I think that certainly in UK, you should only get the full benefits for your first child, half of it for the second and half of that for the third. However, if someone has twins then I'd say give them the full benefits for both, as it's not something you choose.There are so many ways not to have children these days that there really aren't many excuses for "accidents." I would not go with as a strict a policy as China but I would certainly make it more costly to have a big family. I know some people adore children and if that's the case and they want to be surrounded with them then get a paid of voluntary job helping them. I adore dogs and cats but no one will give me pet benefits and quite rightly so!

I don't think that breeding should be encouraged like it is and that in schools, the option of not having children should be taught alongside the life choice of having a family of your own. I have met plenty of people who say that they have/are having children because "that's what you do" or you're "not an adult" unless you pop out a sprog. I reckon that even if not a huge difference, mainstream society at least recognising that it is quite alright not to have babies would do some good. Even in 21st Century, there are still prejudices against those who for whatever reason, even if they have valid genetic/psychological reasons, who don't wish to have a child in their lives.

Edited by Droplet, 15 October 2012 - 06:14 AM.

[corb]

We shouldn't.
Life extension might be the only thing that keeps western civilization afloat in the midsts of ever growing african and asian populations.
Longer life spans might actually encourage young people in Europe and the States to have more than one child, that's what I personally hope anyway.

And why would you want to make a law like that to begin with ? Having the minimum amount of kids has been a trend for decades.
And it's not like everyone is going to jump on the longevity bandwagon. In fact a lot of people are against it. And quite a lot of people won't be able to afford it. I really can't see a demographic explosion happening even if we cure aging today.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Luminosity, if this for the faschism was because of my previous post, I want to clear myself. I was thinking about programs and education of the governments of these countries, that they have to control their population growth. Moreover, I was thinking about programs, that these countries must create and execute in order to stop the population growth. This is not a faschism. I am not talking about concentration camps and eutanasia of inferior rases. Simply the government of these countries must educate their people, that if they proceed on the same way their whole country will collapse inevitably. They have to make policy, that to stimulate having only one child, like in China for example.

[Droplet]

I would not go that far. But it is antisocial, and it is, in a fashion, a form of suicide. People who do not raise children are terminating their lineage; they are contributing to the death of their culture, their beliefs and their values.

Korimyr, If every human in the world decided to suddenly stop having children then yes, we may have a big problem. However, people have not been having children since time immemorable either because they cannot or through choice. The vast majority of people would like a child of their own so I doubt there will be a crisis of not enough people on the planet.

As for your values and beliefs, I'm not 100% like my parents and every human is an individual. You can teach your child but there's no guarantee it will embrace your feelings and beliefs entirely. Sometimes this is a good thing, as I'm from a pretty deathist family who watch way too much TV and I got rid of my TV and support life extension.

[67limitless13]

I believe this should be applied to LEDCs.

Overpopulation isn't a problem in developed countries, immigration is.

[mikeinnaples]

Unfortunately, I believe we have gone past the point of sustainability on this planet. As long as we continue to add more people to a planet that cannot sustain it, longevity / curing aging is going to be an after thought to everything else.