91 replies to this topic

[RighteousReason]

Aubrey de Grey: Why we age and how we can avoid it
http://www.ted.com/i...alks/view/id/39

"In a shocking challenge to conventional wisdom, Cambridge researcher Aubrey de Grey argues that the process of aging is merely a disease -- and a curable one at that. De Grey, a computer scientist and biogerontologist, believes humans could live for centuries, if only we approach the aging process as "an engineering problem." He outlines the seven basic ways people age, and how to "solve" each one. And if we get to work now, he says, humans alive today could live to be 1,000. "

Life extension community e.g. Aubrey de Gray taking the wrong approach on solutions to so-called "overpopulation problem". Stop telling people they must choose between life extension and reproduction. He says human aging is an engineering problem, why not overpopulation as well?

[Live Forever]

Aubrey de Grey: Why we age and how we can avoid it
http://www.ted.com/i...alks/view/id/39

"In a shocking challenge to conventional wisdom, Cambridge researcher Aubrey de Grey argues that the process of aging is merely a disease -- and a curable one at that. De Grey, a computer scientist and biogerontologist, believes humans could live for centuries, if only we approach the aging process as "an engineering problem." He outlines the seven basic ways people age, and how to "solve" each one. And if we get to work now, he says, humans alive today could live to be 1,000. "

Life extension community e.g. Aubrey de Gray taking the wrong approach on solutions to so-called "overpopulation problem". Stop telling people they must choose between life extension and reproduction. He says human aging is an engineering problem, why not overpopulation as well?

Well, you can either solve it by lowering birth rate or engineering your way out of it. Either way, it is solvable. Just because Aubrey thinks a low birth rate would be easier than engineering solutions doesn't mean there isn't room for disagreement. As long as we are all on the same page for curing aging, I really could care less what the solution is. (or if it is a mix of things)

[RighteousReason]

Just because Aubrey thinks a low birth rate would be easier than engineering solutions doesn't mean there isn't room for disagreement.

Nobody is asking him to engineer a solution to overpopulation. It is clear by every metric imagineable that the Earth can hold many more humans than anybody should be concerned about.

[Live Forever]

Nobody is asking him to engineer a solution to overpopulation. It is clear by every metric imagineable that the Earth can hold many more humans than anybody should be concerned about.

I completely agree that Earth can hold way more than we have now. I don't think the number is so high that it is something no one should be concerned about, but it is a very large number that we have not yet approached.

[maestro949]

Nobody is asking him to engineer a solution to overpopulation. It is clear by every metric imagineable that the Earth can hold many more humans than anybody should be concerned about.

I completely agree that Earth can hold way more than we have now. I don't think the number is so high that it is something no one should be concerned about, but it is a very large number that we have not yet approached.

The planet is hardly over populated. Even without significant engineering efforts we comfortably have room for a hundred billion or more people.



If we really want to crank things up we could engineer mega complexes that fit the entire population of the world in a space as small as Japan. We could create floating cities that are several kilometers in length that could be homes to hundreds of millions each. Indoor mega-habitats could be built in extreme weather climates such as deserts and in the polar circles. There's plenty of room and resources on this rock. We just need to manage it better.

[Mind]

Right now the main limitation is energy, not space or food. Of course, engineering will also help develop new energy sources and better efficiency.

[RighteousReason]

My only point is that lowering birth rates is not something life extension requires, in fact technology should allow us to significantly raise our birthrate.

The matter of Earth reorganized into an efficient computational substrate on the molecular level could support the population of a billion Earths at a liveable simulation resolution, and at much higher speeds (e.g. live a lifetime in the time of a day). We don't even know what the upper limit could be.

[DJS]

Without getting overly theoretical with allusions to "computorium" [sfty], I do share CSstudent's opinion that overpopulation is certainly not the problem it is popularly believed to be, and as maestro pointed out, there are 'reasonable' theoretical solutions available to this highly theoretical problem.

One should always solve actual problems over potential problems...is overpopulation a problem right now? No, as Mind points out it is actually a problem of technical inefficiency in a number of areas. The technologist's solution has sunk, and must continue to sink, the Malthusian challenge. This is one of the few areas where I do not see there being options available to us (does this lead to or from my progressivism??).

[Live Forever]

I don't know who you guys are trying to convince, lol. As I said, I agree. I just am not ready to throw stones at Aubrey just because he advocates a lower birth rate over engineering approaches.

[brokenportal]

I may have miscalculated, but I did a paper for college years ago about population and I calculated that everybody in the world, if, (theres quite a few ifs, but just humor it) if everybody in the world lived in families of 5 in 5 bedroom houses on 5 acres of land, we could all fit in texas.

That doesnt account for business, industry and feilds of food and everything, but still, Texas.......... The world seems a hell of a lot bigger than Texas to me.

[Live Forever]

I'm down for that... as long as I can live somewhere other than Texas. [wis]

[Shannon Vyff]

I'm down for that... as long as I can live somewhere other than Texas.  [wis]

you didn't just say that!

[Shannon Vyff]

I've lived in Chicago, California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Kansas-- and Texas, and by far the only thing larger than Texas is the ego of its inhabitants--they are fiercely proud of their country (I mean state ) It is beautiful, full of culture, and with a less expensive cost of living than many places. Austin, is the best place to be in Texas of course politics, music, art...great weather

[zoolander]

I'm surprised that more people aren't discussing the point that Mind brought forward. Is the amount of land or amount or resources available that we should be concerned about? When I refer to the amount of land or resources I am talking about an amount that allows the people to live in comfort without suffering.

[niner]

We just had a thread on ImmInst about how great wilderness was. If we have trillions of people on earth or start living in space, it seems like that's going to majorly impact the available wilderness. If we want, for example, vastly more people on earth, then we need to talk about how we would provide fresh water, energy, and all the other stuff they will need without seriously wrecking the biosphere. The "easy" solution is population control, at the moment. In the future, there will probably be solutions to our energy problems, so that will simplify the idea of having a lot more people. Still, ultimately, we need a steady state solution. People can't live forever and procreate wildly, forever...

[Live Forever]

I'm down for that... as long as I can live somewhere other than Texas.  [wis]

you didn't just say that!

I've lived in Chicago, California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Kansas-- and Texas, and by far the only thing larger than Texas is the ego of its inhabitants--they are fiercely proud of their country (I mean state )  It is beautiful, full of culture, and with a less expensive cost of living than many places.  Austin, is the best place to be in Texas of course politics, music, art...great weather

Lol, I was only joking around, wing_girl. I would totally live in Texas. (although if I had my choice I would live somewhere more mountainous, just because I love snow skiing so much, but alas that is not an option for me at the moment) I have quite a few friends in the Dallas area and stayed there for a few months awhile back. (as well as several other cities throughout the state) It is a fine state, I didn't mean to offend you. )

Tried to hot link an image here but couldn't do it.  Kept asking me to enter an URL.

You have to enter in (copy and pasting is easiest) the url link to the picture, wherever it is stored. If you want to attach an image that is on your hard drive, then you have to pick the "File Attachments" option. If you have further trouble, PM me, and I can try to give you more detailed instructions.

[John Schloendorn]

Aubrey de Gray taking the wrong approach on solutions to so-called "overpopulation problem".

Population growth is exponential. Therefore, building more accomodation with finite resources is not a long-term option. If population growth were to continue at the present rate, with or without life-extension therapies, then it will not take all that many millenia before the milky way runs out of material to make more houses - and seconds later more people. Massively reducing the growth rate is the only long-term viable option, with or without life-extension therapies. Aubrey de GrEy can't deny this for political reasons as you suggest, because everyone who knows their math will immediately be put off.

[cyborgdreamer]

Even if you had an immortal population, each couple could still have one child without approaching an infinite population. Each generation would be half the size of the last until there was a generation of only one person. (Of course, that person couldn't have a child). This way, the final population size would only be about twice the original population size based on the mathematics of infinite series: p + p/2 + p/4 + p/8 ... = 2p where p is the original population size.

[Shannon Vyff]

Even if aging is ended, we can't yet rule out all chances of accidents. I'm pro-kids, but agree that there should be a reasonable average and parents should be able to fully support their children financially and emotionally. I've read that a society will stay at about the same average size now with about 2 births, due to accidents and normal death. I could foresee that if aging is ended, and most accidents--someday we'd have to look at other planets. I do think that under proper management and disbursement of resources our planet could hold a lot more people than it now does. I have three children, and plan on having more--but even though I raise them with an 'immortalist' attitude, I do not yet live in an immortalist society.

[forever freedom]

I watched a documentary on discovery channel about a super building; it could put all Tokyo's inhabitants in a few buildings, completely eliminating the overpopulation problem.

Here are a few links to this fascinating project:

http://dsc.discovery...nteractive.html

http://en.wikipedia....i/Sky_City_1000




I believe that overpopulation is not a problem. All we need is to find effective ways to create clean energy.

[RighteousReason]

Aubrey de GrEy can't deny this for political reasons as you suggest, because everyone who knows their math will immediately be put off.

overpopulation might be relevant concern in the long run.
and it is legitimate to say that dropping the mortality rate to zero could theoretically exacerbate this particular concern if it is indeed a problem.
eventually people might have to come to terms with that.

Why is it important to bring this up now?

[Live Forever]

overpopulation might be relevant concern in the long run.
and it is legitimate to say that dropping the mortality rate to zero could theoretically exacerbate this particular concern if it is indeed a problem.
eventually people might have to come to terms with that.

Why is it important to bring this up now?

He doesn't bring it up, though. The only time he answers is when the question is being asked by others to him. It is a frequent question that comes up a lot, in fact.

[DJS]

Population growth is exponential. Therefore, building more accomodation with finite resources is not a long-term option. If population growth were to continue at the present rate, with or without life-extension therapies, then it will not take all that many millenia before the milky way runs out of material to make more houses - and seconds later more people. Massively reducing the growth rate is the only long-term viable option, with or without life-extension therapies. Aubrey de GrEy can't deny this for political reasons as you suggest, because everyone who knows their math will immediately be put off.

Indeed, I agree with you John. The death rate does not, and will not, hold down population growth. Only reductions in the birth rate can do that.

But millenia...millenia??

Again, once considerations go beyond our *sociological event horizon* then I believe it is totally appropriate to come up with all sorts of radically speculative proposals and to feel comfortable doing so.

If instead we limit ourselves to humanity's more immediate and foreseeable concerns (up to, say, 2050), then even if we posit a complete elimination of all involuntary death (which, we can all agree, is highly unrealistic) we would still have the exact same solution set - regardless! 9 billion vs 12 billion - even some of the traditional estimates have this level of variation!

[DJS]

There is no reason why, over the "long term", a human population of 100+ billion couldn't be maintained on this planet. It's purely a matter of technological innovation.

[ag24]

Hi all,

No one here has given the real reason why I take the approach to the overpopulation question that I do. It's very simple, and it also explains my choice of argument on a whole range of issues around ending aging, including some of the scientific ones. Namely: arguments that can't be made totally ironclad invite the reaction that I don't care/haven't thought about the "dangers" of radical LE. That would be a disaster: I need not only to be but to be seen to be a true humanitarian, working in the interests of all. Of course I know that the combination of (a) using the planet more efficiently, (b) having no menopause deadline for when to have kids, and © having a bit more foresight about resource limitations means that we **might** never have an overpopulation problem - indeed, I think the chances of that welcome outcome (as opposed to a dystopia of eternal tension between procreation and survival) are very high (though personally I think (b) will be the main reason, not (a) as most people here seem to expect). But if all I can say is that we *might* not, the deafening retort will be "Oh right, so that's OK then - just as we *might* not devastate the planet with greenhouse gases or we *might* not accidentally create unfriendly AI if we make recursively self-improving intelligent systems - someone lock this guy up, right now." That would be an unsatisfactory outcome.

[caston]

Aubrey:

An interesting twist on this idea could involve the use of reproductive germline cells as crucial source of patient specific stem cells.

People may well decide to use these cells to maintain their soma rather to have offspring.

Is this selfish and narcisstic? Perhaps but does the person who wishes to do this have any less right to than another persons right to have as many children as they can afford?
It is important that the individual has choice in these matters and not be dictated to by government, social and moral pressures.

[RighteousReason]

But if all I can say is that we *might* not, the deafening retort will be "Oh right, so that's OK then - just as we *might* not devastate the planet with greenhouse gases or we *might* not accidentally create unfriendly AI if we make recursively self-improving intelligent systems - someone lock this guy up, right now." That would be an unsatisfactory outcome.

I don't get it