• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Overpopulation -- problem?


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#61 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 July 2008 - 01:04 AM

cyborgdreamer, i think if they're stronger than humans in many areas, they may try to control us at the very least because we'd be a potential threat to them, though if they're truly superior they wouldn't want to destroy us outright completely. i hope they won't be as violent either, but if they climbed to the top of their food chain, it must be due to something, unless that superhuman-like ET was placed there by their ET God, heck, they could even be OUR GOD, the ones who created us and left us on Earth

Edited by HYP86, 02 July 2008 - 01:10 AM.


#62 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

Posted 04 August 2008 - 05:49 PM

Dealing with the Overpopulation Problem

So one argument against significantly extending the healthy human lifespan is that it would exacerbate overpopulation issues.

The glib answer to this is that sooner or later, even without any increase to the human lifespan, humanity must address this problem and radically change legal regimes around the globe to combat overpopulation. Thus we simply do what is necessary sooner rather than later. The Chinese have addressed the problem, and we need someday to be able to stop demonizing them for it and instead adopt similar measures (it's one of the few things I'd applaud that regime for).

I think there's a "simple" solution to the problem of extreme life extension leading to overpopulation: sterilization (perhaps temporary, perhaps permanent). Once we reach the point we can actually reverse aging, the procedure will have to be made contingent on the individual wishing to undergo the treatment being sterilized. People would therefore remain fertile until they decided to have their first rejuvenating treatment. Aubrey de Grey has hinted when asked about this that this is his preferred solution, but he's adept at dancing around the issue so as to avoid stepping on toes.

Simple on paper, but potentially a nightmare in practice. It's hard to imagine all nations initially agreeing to this. And there will be protesters who will argue (fatuously) that fertility is an essential component of our humanity, that requiring its sacrifice to receive treatment for the disease of aging is unethical, and that we will find some alternative way to deal with the overpopulation problem. But make no mistake about it: we are likely to be able to reverse aging far in advance of our ability to shift excess population off planet, and limiting the ability to reproduce will be essential. Anyway, fewer people will feel compelled to have children in a society in which aging can be reversed, and so the loss of their "reproductive rights" won't be as significant to them.

A number of religious groups would be enraged. Or would they be? If these people are truly devoutly religious and confident they are going to their great reward when they shuffle off this mortal coil, they should be content with a normal span of years. A byproduct of this will be that the number of persons with religious objections to radical human life extension will sharply decline after a few generations.

(edited by Matthias: threads 23569 & 1014 merged)

Edited by Matthias, 29 November 2008 - 11:56 AM.


#63 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 04 August 2008 - 06:09 PM

It is important to consider the potential pitfalls and costs associated with people living longer. We can and should be the leaders in developing strategies for success.

During this discussion, I just want people to keep in mind the primary question: Should we continue to let people suffer and die because there MIGHT be overpopulation problems, or there MIGHT be a squeeze on social benefits, or people MIGHT get bored by living so long(heaven forbid)? The answer is obviously NO, with a capital N.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 04 August 2008 - 06:24 PM

The suggested solutions are required only if overpopulation becomes a problem, and it remains unclear that it will. Birthrates are on the decline in many countries...will this trend continue and spread, leading to a predicted peak in 2050?

If birthrates are on the decline, but radical life extension keeps those people around longer, then just how quickly will the population grow? If the growth rate is low, then we might be able to manage with gains in technology. If the growth rates are high, then we might need to bring in additional resources to the planet, or move people to where other resources are located.

What we need is a fishbone. Before we can think about possible solutions, we need to follow all the various ways this could go. I personally am not convinced overpopulation will EVER be a problem, no matter how high the numbers get. We will deal, like we do, and hopefully better than we do now.

#65 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

Posted 04 August 2008 - 06:41 PM

It is important to consider the potential pitfalls and costs associated with people living longer. We can and should be the leaders in developing strategies for success.

During this discussion, I just want people to keep in mind the primary question: Should we continue to let people suffer and die because there MIGHT be overpopulation problems, or there MIGHT be a squeeze on social benefits, or people MIGHT get bored by living so long(heaven forbid)? The answer is obviously NO, with a capital N.


Aside from the primary question as you frame it, which is whether or not we should pursue technologies that radically extend the human lifespan, there are some ancillary questions that must be considered if our answer is "yes".

One of those is the subject of the title of this thread: the overpopulation issue as exacerbated by radical human life extension. But that question may only be applicable to rich, developed countries.

Another question is, "How do we narrow the gap between the most and least fortunate people around the world, especially to the extent that gap will be greatly widened by access to radical life extension only in rich developed countries?"

Vastly improving living conditions (universal access to electricity, clean water, sufficient food, a decent primary / secondary / post-secondary education) throughout Africa (and other least developed nations throughout the world) is a must. As long as this continent is a black hole of despair and misery, it will be a hotbed for terrorism (and terrorists will have more frightening tools at their disposal in years to come) and a place of unrelenting conflict.

Improved education and universal access to birth control will help check the overpopulation problem there in the near term. And until the basic necessities for a stable society are provided, it will not be possible to offer to these people the future fruits of successful life extension technologies available elsewhere, and I can only imagine the resentment that will breed.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can't do it alone through their charitable foundation, although they may make things significantly better in some places on that continent. There must be a "Marshall Plan" for Africa, supported not just by the US, but also by the EU, Japan, etc. We must have the humanity and wisdom to recognize, as did the United States after WWII, that widespread conditions of despair and instability in foreign lands ultimately threaten us all.

#66 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

Posted 04 August 2008 - 07:03 PM

The suggested solutions are required only if overpopulation becomes a problem, and it remains unclear that it will. Birthrates are on the decline in many countries...will this trend continue and spread, leading to a predicted peak in 2050?

If birthrates are on the decline, but radical life extension keeps those people around longer, then just how quickly will the population grow? If the growth rate is low, then we might be able to manage with gains in technology. If the growth rates are high, then we might need to bring in additional resources to the planet, or move people to where other resources are located.

What we need is a fishbone. Before we can think about possible solutions, we need to follow all the various ways this could go. I personally am not convinced overpopulation will EVER be a problem, no matter how high the numbers get. We will deal, like we do, and hopefully better than we do now.


Of course it will be, and that moment will only come sooner if the human lifespan is radically extended. Sure, some people will only want to have one or two kids, and have them later (but those kids will have a few kids, and so will theirs, and so on, with the original parents still remaining alive). But others may have many dozens of children, and encourage their children to do the same ... unless there are the kind of controls imposed I mentioned.

When I was a young boy, there were 3 billion people on this planet. Today, there are over 6 billion. Yes, we have the capability to feed all of those people (although we don't). But that's three billion more polluters today. At the same time, there are far fewer plant and animal species in existence today than 30 years ago. How many become extinct each year? How does this harm our global ecosystem, as we destroy the last remaining rainforests, etc.? How long will we be able to consume fish from the ocean, who have increasing levels of mercury contamination? Indeed, how long until we contaminate our oceans to the point little survives in them? How does world population affect the rate of global warming? The amount of scarce resources, such as oil and clean water, we consume?

Yes, I've read "The Singularity Is Near", and Kurzweil's argument that we don't really need to worry about overpopulation (and similar arguments made by other people), that some new technology will always keep us (humanity, at least; I guess the wild animals are screwed) ahead of the ball. But what if some of these problems caused by population pressure can't be solved quickly enough by some miracle technology of the future? What then? If we are already sinking under the weight of our own numbers, it may already be too late to make matters right.

#67 marcopolo

  • Guest
  • 128 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Fair Oaks, California

Posted 07 August 2008 - 03:51 AM

The suggested solutions are required only if overpopulation becomes a problem, and it remains unclear that it will. Birthrates are on the decline in many countries...will this trend continue and spread, leading to a predicted peak in 2050?

If birthrates are on the decline, but radical life extension keeps those people around longer, then just how quickly will the population grow? If the growth rate is low, then we might be able to manage with gains in technology. If the growth rates are high, then we might need to bring in additional resources to the planet, or move people to where other resources are located.

What we need is a fishbone. Before we can think about possible solutions, we need to follow all the various ways this could go. I personally am not convinced overpopulation will EVER be a problem, no matter how high the numbers get. We will deal, like we do, and hopefully better than we do now.


Of course it will be, and that moment will only come sooner if the human lifespan is radically extended. Sure, some people will only want to have one or two kids, and have them later (but those kids will have a few kids, and so will theirs, and so on, with the original parents still remaining alive). But others may have many dozens of children, and encourage their children to do the same ... unless there are the kind of controls imposed I mentioned.

When I was a young boy, there were 3 billion people on this planet. Today, there are over 6 billion. Yes, we have the capability to feed all of those people (although we don't). But that's three billion more polluters today. At the same time, there are far fewer plant and animal species in existence today than 30 years ago. How many become extinct each year? How does this harm our global ecosystem, as we destroy the last remaining rainforests, etc.? How long will we be able to consume fish from the ocean, who have increasing levels of mercury contamination? Indeed, how long until we contaminate our oceans to the point little survives in them? How does world population affect the rate of global warming? The amount of scarce resources, such as oil and clean water, we consume?

Yes, I've read "The Singularity Is Near", and Kurzweil's argument that we don't really need to worry about overpopulation (and similar arguments made by other people), that some new technology will always keep us (humanity, at least; I guess the wild animals are screwed) ahead of the ball. But what if some of these problems caused by population pressure can't be solved quickly enough by some miracle technology of the future? What then? If we are already sinking under the weight of our own numbers, it may already be too late to make matters right.

Most of the population explosion is in poorer countries, not only Africa, but south Asia, Middle East, and Latin America. The rich developed world is having the exact opposite problem-the population is imploding in spite of longer lifespans in those countries, and the only thing that is keeping the population in rich countries stable is immigration from the poorer countries. So why is the native population shrinking in rich western countries in the first place? If the sociological trends that cause this low birthrate in Western and rich Asian countries follow to the third world then I don't see overpopulation being as much of an issue in the future as people think it will be. The population could stabilize by itself even with radical life extension, at least long enough to possibly leave the planet or evolve in some other way.

#68 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 07 August 2008 - 05:53 PM

The suggested solutions are required only if overpopulation becomes a problem, and it remains unclear that it will. Birthrates are on the decline in many countries...will this trend continue and spread, leading to a predicted peak in 2050?

If birthrates are on the decline, but radical life extension keeps those people around longer, then just how quickly will the population grow? If the growth rate is low, then we might be able to manage with gains in technology. If the growth rates are high, then we might need to bring in additional resources to the planet, or move people to where other resources are located.

What we need is a fishbone. Before we can think about possible solutions, we need to follow all the various ways this could go. I personally am not convinced overpopulation will EVER be a problem, no matter how high the numbers get. We will deal, like we do, and hopefully better than we do now.


Of course it will be, and that moment will only come sooner if the human lifespan is radically extended. Sure, some people will only want to have one or two kids, and have them later (but those kids will have a few kids, and so will theirs, and so on, with the original parents still remaining alive). But others may have many dozens of children, and encourage their children to do the same ... unless there are the kind of controls imposed I mentioned.

When I was a young boy, there were 3 billion people on this planet. Today, there are over 6 billion. Yes, we have the capability to feed all of those people (although we don't). But that's three billion more polluters today. At the same time, there are far fewer plant and animal species in existence today than 30 years ago. How many become extinct each year? How does this harm our global ecosystem, as we destroy the last remaining rainforests, etc.? How long will we be able to consume fish from the ocean, who have increasing levels of mercury contamination? Indeed, how long until we contaminate our oceans to the point little survives in them? How does world population affect the rate of global warming? The amount of scarce resources, such as oil and clean water, we consume?

Yes, I've read "The Singularity Is Near", and Kurzweil's argument that we don't really need to worry about overpopulation (and similar arguments made by other people), that some new technology will always keep us (humanity, at least; I guess the wild animals are screwed) ahead of the ball. But what if some of these problems caused by population pressure can't be solved quickly enough by some miracle technology of the future? What then? If we are already sinking under the weight of our own numbers, it may already be too late to make matters right.

Most of the population explosion is in poorer countries, not only Africa, but south Asia, Middle East, and Latin America. The rich developed world is having the exact opposite problem-the population is imploding in spite of longer lifespans in those countries, and the only thing that is keeping the population in rich countries stable is immigration from the poorer countries. So why is the native population shrinking in rich western countries in the first place? If the sociological trends that cause this low birthrate in Western and rich Asian countries follow to the third world then I don't see overpopulation being as much of an issue in the future as people think it will be. The population could stabilize by itself even with radical life extension, at least long enough to possibly leave the planet or evolve in some other way.



I agree. I don't remember where i read it, but i read somewhere that the world population number is expected to stabilize at around 2050, when it reaches around 9 billion people.

I agree with this, and the stabilization may even come sooner. Countries like Brazil and China (which aren't even developed yet) already have an average of only 1.8 children per woman, when 2.1 children per woman is the minimum for there to be stable, long term population growth.

I think that in India this will also be the trend in the near future, as it develops more and more.



But one thing that we should take into account is how is the AI revolution going to change the world, in terms of population size? When computers do get as smart as us, i assume either they're going to want to have bodies too, while we are going to want to enhance ourselves and become more and more like them, at least in the interior, by having a cyborg body with a normal human body shape.

Of course no one is considering that factor yet when thinking of population size but we should. By 2050 or later there could be tens, or even hundreds of billions of "people" (including AIs). But i really don't worry; with enough technology we could sustain even trillions of people in our planet only. And we can also not forget that the more brains (intelligence) we have, the more our technology advances, and the more it advances, the more resources we can get by using more advanced means.

#69 HereInTheHole

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 2

Posted 07 August 2008 - 07:20 PM

Just knowing that you're going to live for centuries or millenia or more would probably cause you to start thinking about long-term solutions to things like over-population. That'd be a radical change from how we deal with potential crises: we don't deal until the crisis taps us on the nose. But if your nose extended for millenia, you might feel it early.

I wouldn't be comfortable limiting life extension to just those people who agree to not reproduce. That kind of carrot and stick seems unfair and open to abuse. If life extension is cheap enough, it will be considered a right like clean water rather than a privilege. Urine can be a problem in the wrong environment. Should we limit your water because you don't agree not to pee near the wells? Or should we educate you on why peeing near the wells pisses everyone off?

What I'm hoping is that education about preempting a future crises means a lot more to life extenders than it does right now to us short-lived folk.

Edited by NarrativiumX, 07 August 2008 - 07:41 PM.


#70 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 07 August 2008 - 07:34 PM

I think this is yet another problem that will solve itself.

I've noticed lately that there are two ways to discuss questions like this: from a philosophical standpoint and from a utilitarian standpoint. I am in favour of the first option, but as most people seem to be utilitarian, I'm sometimes forced to use utilitarian arguments.

In this case, my utilitarian argument would be that once people can live "forever", there is no biological need to have children, since having children is a way of ensuring the survival of one's genes. If you can live forever, you have ensured your genes' survival. Another argument would be, as has already been pointed out, is that the more wealthy and civilized people become, the less children they have.

My philosophical argument, on the other hand, would be that to force people to not reproduce is telling them that they are not entitled to their own bodies, which is a logical fallacy.

Also, consider all the things (laws, bureaucracy, agencies, taxes, loss of privacy) that a grand scale enforcement like this would require.

#71 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 22 August 2008 - 07:41 PM

People would therefore remain fertile until they decided to have their first rejuvenating treatment. Aubrey de Grey has hinted when asked about this that this is his preferred solution, but he's adept at dancing around the issue so as to avoid stepping on toes.

Ah, forced-sterilisation. Pretty good idea. Though, it reminds of fascist/nazi regimes and is actually against the law in my country and probably everywhere else in the world these days. Condoms won't do, no shit?! No wonder varkaus compared us to nazis.

Later I'm going to read the rest of the topic and further comment, just wanted to tell ya: you're not gonna take my rights! maybe over my dead body.

#72 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 22 August 2008 - 08:50 PM

People would therefore remain fertile until they decided to have their first rejuvenating treatment. Aubrey de Grey has hinted when asked about this that this is his preferred solution, but he's adept at dancing around the issue so as to avoid stepping on toes.

Ah, forced-sterilisation. Pretty good idea. Though, it reminds of fascist/nazi regimes and is actually against the law in my country and probably everywhere else in the world these days. Condoms won't do, no shit?! No wonder varkaus compared us to nazis.

Later I'm going to read the rest of the topic and further comment, just wanted to tell ya: you're not gonna take my rights! maybe over my dead body.



Well if your "rights" contribute to something bad to the nation like overpopulation when it can't afford it, then they aren't your rights anymore. It's like the case of China limiting the amount of children per couple to 1. If there were more people in China, it would hurt the economy and therefore the ultimate well being of it's inhabitants.

I don't agree that people should be sterilised, though, unless it was possible to reverse this sterilisation. I think that what China did is acceptable, but permanently sterilising people isn't.

#73 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 22 August 2008 - 10:01 PM

Well if your "rights" contribute to something bad to the nation like overpopulation when it can't afford it, then they aren't your rights anymore.


I like this dramatization of that:


Over population is not life extensionists problem, its the non life extensionists.


The only way to prevent the horendous situation of over population that is facing us is to advocate death?

We'll compress the situation so we can analyze it. Instead of 6 billion people being trapped on the planet, we'll talk about it in terms of 600 people being trapped in a warehouse, forever.

Alright, they have babies, they have babies, they have babies, soon, oh crap, theres no more room left.

"Ok eddy, you and mike and don and the bunch are the oldest at 65 now. We need some room. Could you jump into that blender please?"

"Sure we'll jump into that blender. It makes the life we lived more full!" ~jump~

"Thanks guys!" (looking down into blender waving.)

So the oldest have to die? What if the oldest people were 40? What if they were 30? Well, theres no room right? They better die.

Suzy and Tommy are in the corner screwing away. 1, 2, now 3 babies...

"Randy!! Hey,"

Randy looks up from playing cards, "yes?"

"Hey, all the 65 year olds are dead, your the oldest at 64. Tom and Sue here just popped out another one and Bob is firing up the blender. I hate to bother you but we're going to need you to jump into the blender."

"Crap, I had a sweet hand too, well guys, its been nice knowing you but Tom and Suzy need to have another kid."

Death, the old have to make room for babies.

From blog

#74 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 22 August 2008 - 10:37 PM

 

In this case, my utilitarian argument would be that once people can live "forever", there is no biological need to have children, since having children is a way of ensuring the survival of one's genes. If you can live forever, you have ensured your genes' survival. Another argument would be, as has already been pointed out, is that the more wealthy and civilized people become, the less children they have.

Exactly, I don't see a need to reproduce now.  Even less when I'm (quasi-)immortal. If people can live forever, only few will want to have children. Sexual reproduction is just a necessity due to death, a tradtion, an evolutionary artifact (to me anyways). So the birth rate would slow down dramatically - not come to a halt - but it would be so slow enough so that we could manage overpopulation problems (e.g. colonies in space).

My philosophical argument, on the other hand, would be that to force people to not reproduce is telling them that they are not entitled to their own bodies, which is a logical fallacy.

Also, consider all the things (laws, bureaucracy, agencies, taxes, loss of privacy) that a grand scale enforcement like this would require.

It ain't a philosophical argument. To most it is common sense. I prefer death to eternal oppression.

Though, I think it is just a communication problem. I hope TianZi, sam988 and even Aubrey did not imply to sterlize everyone, even those who do not want to reproduce. If yes, you know what they say: come and get them!

I'm just wondering why TianZi thought about forced, violent sterilization in the first place, not as an ultima ratio, but as first line solution.
Why no capitalist approach? Benefits to those who do not reproduce.
Why not appeal to man's intelligence and  "ask" people to stop reproducing - not force them? Then gradually solving the problem as birth rates would slow down.
Why not a completely different approach, an engineering approach - managing overpopluation, not a gerontological approach - messing with the underlying, complex issues man's freedom and free will. Yeah, this is a SENS analogy.

EDIT:
I expect more open mindedness and tolerance from life extensionists, not such narrow thinking like "theirs". So I hope you like my ideas more than sterilization.
Just found this, makes one almost cry, because of all the intolerance: "simply to covet a prolonged life span for ourselves is both a sign and a cause of our failure to open ourselves to procreation and to any higher purpose. … [The] desire to prolong youthfulness is not only a childish desire to eat one’s life and keep it; it is also an expression of a childish and narcissistic wish incompatible with devotion to posterity." (Leon Kass)

Edited by kismet, 22 August 2008 - 11:32 PM.


#75 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

Posted 27 August 2008 - 10:07 AM

1. Kismet,

Where did I advocate forced sterilization? I didn't. What I advocated was making rejuvenating treatments contingent on being sterilized at the time of treatment. This would allow a person to have as many children as they liked until their first rejuvenation treatment, which would likely not come before the end of their normal period of fertility. People could also opt to never have such rejuvenating treatments.

In case there is some confusion about China's current population control programs, the ones I applauded, they are voluntary, incentive-based programs: couples with only one child are given a "one-child certificate" entitling them to such benefits as cash bonuses, longer maternity leave, better child care, and preferential housing assignments.

And in case it wasn't clear, I'm suggesting the radical measure of sterilization only at that point in time at which extreme life extension becomes a reality, and only on a voluntary basis--if you want the natural effects of aging reversed, you surrender your ability to have children at the time you receive your first rejuvenating treatment.

(Presumably, this procedure would be reversible in a society technologically advanced enough to defeat aging, and so at some very distant time in the future when populating worlds other than our own becomes feasible, these people could opt to leave Earth and regain their fertility.)

2. As regards trends in advanced nations showing a decline in birth rate:

The point that's missed here is that the purpose of this thread is dealing with the overpopulation problem in a world quite unlike the present one, a world in which aging has been essentially defeated.

Let's say the birth rate is 1.8 children per female. In today's world, perhaps we need a rate of 2.1 in order to keep the population stable, but that is only because of the number of people who die each year due to aging. Once the number of people dying for age-related reasons declines to near zero, even a birth rate of 1.8 children per female will cause enormous problems over time. And of course that 1.8 will no longer hold, either, since every woman will have an unlimited time in which to have children.

And to be clear, my proposal above--tying rejuvenating treatments to sterilization--doesn't resolve the overpopulation problem that defeating aging will cause. Even if future "ageless" persons are limited to having children only during their normal period of fertility and not indefinitely, this will merely slow the population explosion, not stop it. It merely gives us more time.

People as a general rule are not reasonable. It is a dangerous mistake to plan a future society based on economic models and assumptions based on people being "reasonable". The majority of Americans reject the theory of evolution in favor of a "theory" of creation based on the Bible. Stopping aging will not make people more reasonable--it will just give them so very much more time to be unreasonable.

Edited by TianZi, 27 August 2008 - 10:43 AM.


#76 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 27 August 2008 - 11:45 AM

The falling birth rates in developed nations is by artificial constraints. The boom bust economic cycles are there to encourage and then slow birth rates. The fact that educated people have fewer children is because education is a hinderence to reproductive success and that's the reason why it was introduced i.e. to tame and discipline horny young males.

As a highly educated people we see little reason to have more offspring but not everyone thinks like we do. The major thing stopping people having more children is the price of living. Something like the radicalisation experienced in the 60's could change the distribution of wealth and start enormous population growth.

#77 strigiform

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 August 2008 - 11:27 AM

Hello,

I am completely open to the idea of penalties for reproduction more so than "sterilization". Or, parallel yet in the opposite direction, tax benefits or allowed access to life-extension in exchange for voluntary sterilization. This conversation can't really take place without some conflict of political philosophy perhaps not directly related to immortality, because it deals directly with the authority of government over a very fundamental freedom, but I will still try to keep my point minimal in regards to that. I am a "paleo-libertarian" or "paleo-conservative" in general, however whilst that means that I believe in minimal government, it also means that I believe tax money should occasionally show its worth and act when a known enemy threatens (if it cannot achieve that fundamental role, it should not exist at all, should it?) just to justify it being paid.

Overpopulation and pollution do qualify as threats of that proportion, warranting government action. There is just a very, very thin line between encouragement of sterilization (OK), and intimidation of reproduction (possibly not OK) which could cause a lot of disagreement and eventually place dramatic life-extension into the same taboo realm the respectable field eugenics has been reduced to (just because of how it was formerly handled). China, in some cases, crossed that line.

You mentioned AI. I also believe that the rise of AI will have an affect on population growth. A large part of the population boom in the undeveloped world has been due to investments by modern nations into those undeveloped nations. This, of course, resulted a somewhat unnatural and sudden exposure of advanced medical techniques to a population which did not develop them, and relied heavily on high fertility in order to survive prior to that. Of course, launching a crusade to take back our medical knowledge and technology isn't exactly a solution, especially not on this forum! So...

That doesn't relate directly to AI; however another similar factor does. Developed nations, the same way which they rapidly exposed undeveloped nations to modern medicine, also employ enough industries within the undeveloped world to have a major role in just how much population growth these nations can afford. As AI continues to more and more efficiently handle jobs which were traditionally attributed to "unskilled" workers historically (and for much lower cost), we may see many of these industries evaporate just as rapidly as we saw them die domestically when outsourcing was found to be a financial solution/advantage.

Another possible reason governments are not aggressive on social-engineering of the national birthrate (especially when it requires lowering), is that in our current system, we constantly need a more productive new generation to pay for the last generation's increasingly old age and stagnation. AI could also bring massive change to this area and end the economic philosophy that growth every generation is the only method of sustaining the ability to effectively care for the elderly without going poor.

As far as the population stabilizing by 9 billion, I assume you got that from UN estimates, which change frequently. Most of the "measures" put into place in raising overpopulation awareness in unstable countries were a dissapointment, and the number was soon after raised to 11 billion. I personally think even that is a very low estimate.

Here is a map of nations by population density.

Here is one of UN population projections.

All of these solutions are merely "biding time" somewhat, and true immortality or dramatic life-extension (or even permanent existence of the human bloodline) would only be eternally sustainable via perpetual colonization of other planets... then again, that is something as important to me as life-extension itself, so entwining them in such a way may be optimistic bias!

We base most, if not all, of our calculations about overpopulation relative to the size of Earth...

Posted Image

Strigiform

Edited by strigiform, 28 August 2008 - 11:52 AM.


#78 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 31 August 2008 - 01:57 PM

Where did I advocate forced sterilization? I didn't. What I advocated was making rejuvenating treatments contingent on being sterilized at the time of treatment. This would allow a person to have as many children as they liked until their first rejuvenation treatment, which would likely not come before the end of their normal period of fertility. People could also opt to never have such rejuvenating treatments.

...

And in case it wasn't clear, I'm suggesting the radical measure of sterilization only at that point in time at which extreme life extension becomes a reality, and only on a voluntary basis--if you want the natural effects of aging reversed, you surrender your ability to have children at the time you receive your first rejuvenating treatment.

It's the damn language barrier I think. In this presumed future life extension is probably available to everyone. Thus if you revoke my right of life extension you infringe on my human rights. You do not only infringe on my rights, you blackmail me, giving me the choice: death or freedom. Maybe blackmailing is not the same as the "use of force" per se, but in my opinion it is even worse. I choose to fight to death for my freedom. I want to have the freedom to decide what happens with my body.
Look, if i don't want to reproduce at all, why do you want to blackmail me into sterilisation?!
I just want you to admit you were wrong on this account.

TianZi, you address problems of a future "in which aging has been essentially defeated", but you fail to realize the sheer size of the universe, which by then we most probably could colonize and which would essentially solve all overpopulation problems.


#79 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

Posted 31 August 2008 - 03:40 PM

Kismet,

My expectation and sincere hope is that extreme life extension will become a reality within the next 20 years or so, or at least treatments that allow us to maintain "escape velocity". In contrast, I think it is highly unlikely we will be ready to colonize any other planet--let alone any planet in the universe!--for a very long time, absent the creation in the relative near term of some super-intelligent, self-improving AI that doesn't destroy us all (Kurzweil's "Singularity"). If you carefully read what I wrote above, you'd note that I did deal with the potential for colonization of other worlds as opening new choices for those who receive life extending treatments and have been sterilized. But having the future option of leaving Earth to live elsewhere doesn't give us a carte blanche to wreck Earth for those who'd like to continue living on it, and by "living" I don't just mean surviving, but enjoying its remaining natural beauty in a pristine state.

You are correct that we do not share a common language. Our ethical and moral systems are worlds apart. From my point of view, the problem with extreme libertarians (such as you seem to be) is that they are concerned only with protecting their own "rights", i.e., their freedom to act as they please, and have no sense of responsibility toward others, except perhaps in a negative way.

It is a prerequisite in any true community that its members surrender the unfettered freedom they enjoy in the state of nature for the greater good of the community and all of its members. How the balance is struck will differ from community to community, but this basic rule must hold true, or anarchy reigns. See Thomas Hobbes and The Leviathan.
'
Arguing against, e.g., laws requiring motorcycle helmets is one thing, since the conduct regulated is basically "self-regarding"
(although the counter argument is that it in fact is not, because of the cost to the state in caring for victims of head injuries which would have been avoided by wearing a helmet, and the indirect harm thereby done to all inhabitants of the state). Be this as it may, the ability to reproduce in a world where limitless life extension has become a reality is definitely not "self-regarding conduct", but "other regarding conduct".

As the population explodes on Earth in an essentially "ageless" global society with unfettered reproduction rights, living space will become more and more limited, pollution will worsen, scarce resources will become more scarce, and this will be an exponentially worsening situation as the population potentially doubles every 20 years--we won't have the aging dying off naturally anymore to balance the scales. In an overcrowded, resource-poor environment such as this, existential risks will mount. Even if the human race could / did survive, it would be a miserable existence, all because people such as yourself couldn't bear surrendering their ability to breed at the time they received their first rejuvenation treatment (and not before that time), an ability they couldn't maintain absent such treatment.

#80 Anjela

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 0

Posted 01 September 2008 - 10:36 AM

Wow! I stumbled upon your wealth of information and insight and simply had to sign up and post a response to this one.

I must say, it is obvious that we have some educated and "in the know" people responding here. It is nice to meet you and I am looking forward to the experience and open debate sure to ensue on this forum.

I thought long and hard about what the proper way would be for me to express my viewpoint here. I am typically not one to sugar coat my thoughts for anyone, therefore I will not be doing so now. Please understand that each point expressed will truly be in the spirit of healthy debate and with 100% intention to enlighten and learn from all of you as well. If what I say seems critical it will indeed be meant to insult in some cases, but only to inspire a wider range of thought in those that, to me, need it desperately. Intelligent people that we are, should be able to get past that insult, if necessary, access the viewpoint, choose to either adopt it or a portion thereof or dismiss it as invalid or irrelevant, based on intelligent reason.

That having been said, I will address the threads question first. It is absolutely a problem in society today, as well as in a future society of expanded life. However, the reasons we have the problem have yet to be mentioned with any truth in reality, IMO. I truly was shocked at how little a part of life, it seemed many of you must really be. Please do not be offended by that and hear me out. It is truly not a problem we should be having. Clearly, when you look into the eyes of any starving child, you only see a child... STARVING! It is not a problem that we as a human beings should be comfortable with having either. We are a race of people that fight and kill each other.

My response is clearly and most simply, we should deal with overpopulation, by getting our worlds societies the resources, education, and help, to enable each and every country to be able to sustain their own people, like any other country. We take our money, our resources, our people, our blood, sweat and hard work to the neighbors and help build them up. We take care of each other, learn to work and love each other. If a nation is overpopulated, it is because its people are oppressed. Do you not see the simple truth in that with all of your intellect. We humans will make happiness in our lives by whatever means we can. If we do not have happiness we will make babies to love us and to love. Poor people, have so little in any day that they can truly even smile about. Humans must have love to survive. In an underdeveloped and poor country, can you imagine, the stress of surviving each day? Seriously, take 10 minutes from your life and give that to the thought of what it would be like in a day. Please. The next time you smile or giggle I truly hope you think about how effortless it was for you to do that and how much a miracle it would be if living that existence. Babies bring love into the lives of each person that has the fortune to see it. Breathes life into the souls that hold it. Gives purpose to the lives that are responsible to it. Restores the innocent memories of childhood to those who bother to look through the eyes of that child. This is why we see birth and why it seems so much of a problem in countries less fortunate.

Furthermore, have we been so skewed that we have not heard the other side to the China law of one child per couple? What about the people who live in the countries where their babies are taken and murdered if they are born female? What about the punishments and realities of couples trying to cross borders while pregnant with baby number 2. These people are not running from not getting a certificate or lower housing rank for goodness sake. They are in fear and running from other humans that have became so "intelligently blind" that instead of compassion, they raise up to punish and hurt. Surely you can see my points if there is a resonable mind.

The reason... the cut through the bull dung in the dung house truth of it all, gets down to the human condition. The human condition is literally ill and lacking empathy to the point of irrevocable proportions. This I am truly sorry to say, is absolutely the fault of intelligent minds and those humans with money. The saddest part of all of this though is how little the rich and most intelligent, understand about what it means to be part of humanity anymore. This is not their fault completely. Not all the fault lies in any one group of humans. However, if you are honest with yourself, it will not be hard to see that the majority of this planet live in the real world. The majority in any civilized culture now or in the past, have the power to effectively destroy even the best laid plans to control and dominate. It is human nature to resist it. If you try and oppress people that have little to smile about, by taking their fundamental human need to be loved, love and have sense of purpose, even if it is disguised as a choice, you and all that you think you control will soon understand the human condition in its majority REALITY.

Until we intelligent people work to fix the human condition, it is this humans opinion that we do not deserve to live an expanded life. Who in the heck do we think we are to tell any person they can not have more than one child or can not have an expanded life if they do not choose to become sterile. My goodness, the arrogance is shameful. And to say that most people are not reasonable blew my mind. Granted, I can see more and more unreasonable thought each and everyday, but clearly to me it only serves to show how detached from the majority you have become. The human condition is worse everyday. People are smiling less and less. Families are finding themselves on the streets by the hundreds everyday in the USA. The reason the majority in this country are having less children, is not because we are more educated than the others, not entirely. It is because we are living in fear for our safety and because we have lost faith in our government and leaders. The world is now dangerous, even in our own countries. Poor brings violence. Poisons in our food, mercury in our vaccines, and the dumbing down of our intellect with ssri and other medicines make us passive. The information is out there, we owe it to ourselves to find out what is really going on behind the scenes and how it affects the reality of our futures, because we are the intelligent and our fellow human neighbors need us and are counting on us to do so.

I ask you a few short questions now, that if you will consider with sincerity, should embark you on a new journey of self discovery, awareness, and life altering education.

1. Do you believe, that the majority population is unable to choose the right/reasonable thing once faced with a crucial problem on their own? Are they just too stupid to be reasonable?

2. Do you believe that free energy world wide would make an impact of tremendous positive influence on the human condition?

3. How much land or area would be required for each human to grow enough food to sustain life for himself?

4. Global warming and hAArP and weather? Interesting.. yes?

5. Are you still able to eat corn, potatoes or tomatoes?

6. In your opinion, can we as a race survive without empathy? Without Love and loving?

7. Have you seen Zeitgeist? Yeah, I know what you mean. Me too.

8. Can a person of wealth or social status or poor for that matter, who has proven to be a liar, oppressive and self serving be trusted by anyone?

9.When did they find out who jack the Ripper was?


I know that these questions seem very unrelated and quite honestly out there in LaLa land... but I can assure you when it comes down to expanded life rejuvinations (as if any of us would actually get one), and understanding the majority reality and how we got here, as well as overpopulation and the plans already in place to deal with all of it, the answers to even just a few of these, seriously considered, will begin your journey to discover the relevance to this topic.

Before I close and you begin to attack me, go easy on me please... I'm a newbie!! :} I have one final note based on a comment

You are correct that we do not share a common language. Our ethical and moral systems are worlds apart. From my point of view, the problem with extreme libertarians (such as you seem to be) is that they are concerned only with protecting their own "rights", i.e., their freedom to act as they please, and have no sense of responsibility toward others, except perhaps in a negative way.


I don't think you are as different as you may think. I can see why you would think so. I love your careful wording by the way, you do a very responsible job at not offending and trying to not ridicule directly ie: "as you SEEM to be". Anyway, could it be that the extreme libertarian as you put it, is merely one who understands the human condition better? Perhaps, that person can see the disasterous consequensences in denying what is clearly a human trait. FREE WILL is part of our natural existance. Furthermore, I don't think it is fair or even a correct judgement to assume that just because one is smart enough to resist contolling free will in human beings means they cannot act with responsibility, respinsibility or empathy of others. In fact it is could be said that it is people you seem to be like, thinking that they possess a moral and ethical fiber superior to other choices than those of your own, are the very core of the problem. Depending upon what vantage point of course you stand looking.

May this message be received in the spirit it was intended.

thank you for your time, all that you do and your consideration.

#81 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

Posted 01 September 2008 - 04:36 PM

Anjela,

I'm glad at least one other person here is concerned about bridging the gap between the "haves" and "have nots"; one of my posts above in this thread is devoted to that subject. You are a compassionate, emphathetic person, even as regards persons outside your immediate circle of acquaintence; these are qualities I wish more people shared.

I'm not clear on all the points you were making, such as the relevance of the question regarding Jack the Ripper, so I'll just address the issue of the innate reasonableness of humanity.

I think you are extremely naive to believe the majority in a given society tends generally to be reasonable in its collective decision making. I think it is clear to any careful student of history that this is not the case. The German masses empowered and supported Hitler, despite the atrocities he committed, until the bitter end. Play upon people's fears, give them something to hate, tell them only you can save them and that those who disagree are traitors, and they are putty in your hands. Sound familiar? It should.

The majority of Americans believe the theory of evolution is false, and that mankind was created per the account in the Bible. This is a patently illogical, unreasonable belief. This same majority believes homosexuals are damned to burn in hell forever because their Bible tells them so; more nonsense. The vast majority of white Southerners supported their "right" to slave ownership prior to the Civil War, and after they were forced to surrender that "right", the maintenance of Jim Crow laws in the years thereafter to ensure blacks were kept in a subservient, non-threatening position. These people widely supported anti-miscegenation laws in the South that made it a criminal felony offense for a Caucasian to marry a person of another race, laws that remained in full force and effect in 18 states in the US until almost 1970 (it's rather entertaining that the Virginia anti-miscegenation statute specifically excluded descendants of Pocahontas). These laws were not the product of reasonable, thoughtful analysis but rather served to institutionalize irrational fears, hatred and prejudices. These laws were not ultimately rescinded due to any reasoned decision by "the majority", but rather the greater wisdom of a much smaller minority, the members of the US Supreme Court.

But we are getting off on a tangent now.

Let's imagine that within the next few years there is a remarkable scientific breakthrough that "cheaply" permits the reversal of aging (actually, it will only be cheap and practicable in developed nations, which will create its own set of problems). (I don't regard such a breakthrough as likely in such a short time frame, but that's besides the point). You seem to say that if people can't be reasonable without coercion, than we don't deserve a continued existence as a species. You imply that it would be better to allow the human race to essentially enslave itself through explosive overpopulation and ruin the planet rather than require people to surrender their ability to procreate in return for freedom from the ravages of aging (again, a choice that would only need to be made at the end of their normal period of fertility).

This won't happen. All governments reserve to themselves the right to take control of the bodies of their citizens in times of crisis (e.g., a military draft), or even outside it to prepare for the occurrence of such an event in the future (compulsory military or alternative governmental service in many countries). And this is an acceptable trade-off, as by enjoying the fruits of society we must also stand ready to serve it and the greater good of all its members, and surrender the unrestricted freedom we would enjoy in the state of nature / complete anarchy. If and when defeating aging becomes a reality, make no mistake: it will be a time of mixed crisis and promise. Governments will respond accordingly, but some will move faster than others to address this issue. And the ones that move most slowly will likely be the ones that ultimately implement the most draconian measures.

Edited by TianZi, 01 September 2008 - 04:44 PM.


#82 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

Posted 02 September 2008 - 11:02 AM

Typo:

"... than we don't deserve ..."

Should be "then".

#83 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

Posted 03 September 2008 - 09:26 AM

I mentioned above that Aubrey de Grey supports tying the receipt of rejuvenation treatments with voluntary sterilization. And few have thought longer or harder about the repercussions of an ageless society than Aubrey.

Aubrey De Grey, if you didn't already know, is the leading voice in the scientific community pushing for the reversal of human aging in our lifetime, and a leading proponent of SENS: Sensible Engineered Negligible Senesence. This is a unified theory for defeating aging.

He's also the Bioscience advisor to ImmInst.

Below is a link to a video of a speech that Aubrey gave in Jan. 2006, toward the end of which (see 39:20 to 40:13) in no uncertain terms he explains that a world in which aging has been overcome will ultimately be a "world without children":

http://video.google....709231920433808

Here's a rough summary:

At the start of the Q&A session, a member of the audience says he can't help but think of the children--will these rejuvenation treatments somehow prevent women from giving birth after receiving them?

Aubrey responds,

"I won't bother with the easy answer to this question. The easy answer is that maybe overpopulation won't really happen because population is already going down in Europe, etc. There are lots of "waffley" answers like that. I'm going to give you the straight-up answer: It doesn't matter if we have to do things like sterilization. The right to procreate will never be rated above the right of a currently living human being to continue living. Not developing this means letting people die. Yes, it will be a world without children."

This is a rough and not exact transcript; please watch the video for the complete version.

Edited by TianZi, 03 September 2008 - 09:27 AM.


#84 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,110 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 06 September 2008 - 11:32 AM

it will be very gradual so 1 child per woman is a good objective for 2100 :-D
here are extracts of overpopulation discussions in MF:

governments: why and how increase lifespan - overpopulation:

Overpopulation discussion in the published pro-longevity arguments by Aubrey de Grey. Read it! Snapshots:
- analogous to the infant death prevention that took place at the end of the 19th century; human rights to live if they want to
- in the worst scenarios, there are still ways to limit overpopulation
- the society adaptation shall not be that hard; in particular population growth due to longevity is gradual anyway
- several indicators (less children, later in life) suggest that the population growth might go unnoticed

2 'amateur' threads in this forum about overpopulation (simulations of overpopulation, what to do in worst scenarios):
- Simplifying the ethics of overpopulation
- Overpopulation Revisted

from "overpopulation revisted":

Posted Image
Population 1:
Population trend based on a starting population of 9 billion (see reference below) in 2050, and increasing by approximately 9 billion per year (4.5 billion males, 4.5 billion females). This is obviously based on 2 children per female, and does not taper off assuming unlimited or exceptionally prolonged lifespan. Furthermore, it is based on reproductive cycles. (...) we can still expect exceptional population hikes by and following 400 years. Over 50 billion seems quite unmanageable, although that is purely speculation.
Population 2:
Population two is based on all of the same assumptions as the prior, except that it is based on one child (...) per female. As such, we can expect the population to taper off somewhere around 20 billion


Edited by AgeVivo, 06 September 2008 - 11:34 AM.


#85 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 08 September 2008 - 04:34 PM

Your idea is not bad, as it would certainly solve the overpopulation problem.* However, it is the reason why the majority of the population think we're dangerous lunatics and politicians would never support extreme transhumanism and life extension. I'm not the only one opposed, most of mankind would be.
Even if your plan is the best solution - which it very well may be - you won't overcome these major obstacles in the near term future.
I'm wondering why you're the only one so completely convinced by your idea. Everyone proposed alternatives and was rather supportive of those, in contrast to your plan.

* Yet I think there are other ideas that would work which you fail to realize.

I think you clearly misinterpreted what Aubrey says. You're not presenting forced sterilisation as an ultima ratio as he did. To him it is not a preferred solution or a must-have. He just says we won't let people die (i.e. kill them) to let others reproduce.
If the mfoundation really wants to mess with politics, they'll lose my support, probably not only mine. Aubrey surely is a smart guy, but he cannot know the best solution
to every problem. Let me reiterate that it would be pathetic if Aubrey d. G. the creator of the engineering approach insisted on forced sterilisation and not looked for an engineering approach to this problem (I've addressed this point before, thank you for ignoring it).
Don't forget even Aubrey is not infallible or we'd be already immortal.

I think your idea and the ideology it is based on, or at least the way you express it, harms the image of the immortality institute and the mfoundation.

Do you know why?
Because your idea is unethical, way too drastic and extremely difficult to realize.

Do you know why you idea is unethical?
I've discussed the issue already in my other posts. Summing up, it violates "You have the right to live, and to live in freedom and safety.", which was widely accepted the last time I checked.

Do you know why it is too drastic?
You do not believe in good will. When I proposed to give the people a choice between sterilisation and simply not procreating you ignored my point. (Or maybe I was mad at you for ignoring my point and missed that you addressed it. This is why I'm personally offended, which I'll address later on in my post)

Do you know why it is difficult to realize?
Do you really think there are no people with the money, power and will to go against your plan? Can you really stop me from reproducing if I save my sperm before you f*ck me up. Or if I clone myself? Or do you think the mfoundation will have the monopoly on SENS/life extension forever and there will be no other players offering life extension without forcing sterilisation on people?
Do you want to risk civil war and genocide just to enforce your idea? Install a totalitarian regimen? Massive surveillance? Telescreens at everyone's place?

Colonising the moon is definitely in the same ballpark as stopping aging, even mars could be. I don't believe you discounted those arguments that easily.

This time around you're being naive, if you think that you can overcome all those problems with ease!

Now I'll tell you why I am personally offended by your idea:
You sound really embittered, which is fine. I'm not a good guy, I don't believe the world is a good place, neither is it getting much better whatever we do. Yet I'm curious and I like the world to function, and therefore still obey most of the necessary rules.
I don't care if you want to harm people when you have no choice. Yet I do not understand why do you want to harm people, if you have the choice. I would not want to procreate in such a case, yet you insist to harm me, just because I refuse sterilisation? I understand that it can give people a pleasure to harm others, I'm not talking morals, there's no such thing, if you admitted you are a sadist I'd be fine with it. However, for someone apparently not sadistic why do you insist on forced sterilisation?
We're fighing over semantics just because you don't want to admit that you don't need to force me to anything. That's madness.

Edited by kismet, 08 September 2008 - 04:40 PM.


#86 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,110 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 08 September 2008 - 08:00 PM

let's change subject...if you have an American Express Card, starting tomorrow you can vote here to make overpopulation a bit sooner ;) . And if you want it to be really soon, spread the word about it: http://www.fightard.org

#87 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

Posted 09 September 2008 - 08:27 AM

Kismet,

What part of "This will be a world without children" don't you understand? De Gray's position here is clear to anyone who isn't being intentionally obtuse.

What I've suggested is far less radical (and it presupposes defeating aging, so it's nothing applicable to today's situation, only a hypothetical future one). We'd continue having plenty of children, and absolutely no one would be forced to be sterilized; the procedure would be an entirely voluntary one not likely to be sought until past the point in the normal life span in which having children is safe [/u] (except pursuant to your very tortured interpretation of what it means to be "forced" to do something). Saying that I must be a sadist is bizarre, since this voluntary treatment should entail no physical pain, and even if it did, I certainly wouldn't take pleasure from it (that's what being a "sadist" means, but again you have played fast and loose with the English language).

To build on my proposal, I think it would be reasonable to wait twenty five years or so after age rejuvenation treatments first become broadly available to the general public before taking the course of action I've suggested, and see how population grows during that period. Obviously, not making people choose between sterilization and life extension would be ideal, if practicable. In order to maximize the odds of escaping the inevitability of world overpopulation due to defeating aging, the nations of the world would immediately need to adopt strong economic incentives encouraging very low birth rates. If at the end of this period, population is increasing in an unsustainable manner, something akin to the course I have proposed would have to be adopted. Perhaps I am too pessimistic, and humans are innately reasonable creatures; I doubt it.

As far as colonizing other worlds goes, I think it's clearly very unlikely that we'll be able to shift significant portions of the Earth's population off planet in the near future (and I can't imagine that as being anything but voluntary, if and when it happens), whereas I think it's likely we will have access to age rejuvenation treatments within the next 20 years. And anyway, what good will this option do for those inhabitants of Earth who don't want to leave it, or the survival and health of Earth's ecosystem itself? What, you think gambling on the chance of being able to escape a ship you've allowed to founder is good enough?! To me, your position is absolutely unethical and illogical.

My proposal probably doesn't go far enough to matching the challenge of overpopulation in a near-term scenario in which we have overcome aging. But as a practical matter, De Gray's solution (which would apparently entail forced sterilization, and well in advance of any rejuvenation treatment) won't be practicable until we are at rope's end, so to speak, or humanity's mores have been significantly transformed.

As far as having the "right to live in freedom" goes, it doesn't extend to situations in which that exercise of "freedom" endangers others. As an example, Typhoid Mary may have been immune to her disease, but others weren't, and society rightly acts to protect itself in such situations--Typhoid Mary's rights were, and are, subordinate to a society's "right" and obligation to protect itself and the greater good of all of its members. Aubrey said essentially the same thing

I'm not alone in this thread in advocating voluntary sterilization for receipt of age rejuvenation treatments. Strigiform said he's open to the idea of making receipt of age rejuvenation treatments contingent on voluntary acceptance of sterilization on an individual basis. And even if I was "alone" in my opinion as regards forum members who have posted in this thread, I consider Aubrey De Gray to be good company. (He is a forum member, by the way; I wonder if he'll post in this thread. I expect not.) I'm also confident our greatest past political philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, the author of The Leviathan (a principal source of inspiration to the Founding Fathers of the United States), would agree with me. It's a simple utilitarian calculus.

We must put the needs of humanity and the ecosystem above our own selfish desires. The problem with life extensionists is that too many fail to think beyond their own personal well-being, or past the point of achieving an ageless society, as though upon achieving this objective we'll all experience some transcendent moment of Rapture and walk off happily ever after into the sunset. But the math is inescapable, or so it seems to me. Courage requires confronting tough choices squarely, without fearing how others may perceive you.

Edited by TianZi, 09 September 2008 - 09:21 AM.


#88 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

Posted 09 September 2008 - 09:39 AM

And, Kismet, if "the right to life" means what you say it does, it follows that every human being, and not just every American, has a fundamental right to receive these treatments, regardless of wealth or lack thereof. Now so far, I am absolutely the only person in this thread who has expressed concern regarding the "equal access" problem--what about inhabitants of Third World nations?

Why aren't you equally concerned about all those who won't have access to these treatments because of an accident of birth? Is it only yourself you care about? What, do you revel in the thought of all those persons of color dying off, whilst you live "forever"? How sadistic of you! ;)

(See how two can play the distortion game?)

#89 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,110 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 11 September 2008 - 10:25 PM

Btw the thing I am the most 'equally concerned' about is whether we will make longer-lives a reality in our living or at least for our children, not in 6 generations from now. So, if you want to move your ass, and not just rely on a few workers, you'll find in the second-half of this post a few real projects to participate in.

#90 abolitionist

  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 12 September 2008 - 09:19 AM

We can just stop breeding so much - we'll need breeding laws in place so that no unneccessary procreation takes place - just neuter humans and then procreate using in vitro fertilization.

Some people believe that they should be allowed to create human beings as often and however they like - they see it as their right.

The right of the individual is to be created with subjective long-term well being in mind.

But humans don't think that way about those they create - so society must control procreation.

unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, rape, bad parents, inability to care for children, genetic diseases - it's time to pull the plug on genetic roulette

Edited by abolitionist, 12 September 2008 - 09:23 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users