91 replies to this topic

[valkyrie_ice]

To be blunt in a high technology affluent society, sex for reproduction is a near non issue. The percentage of people engaging in sex for the purpose of producing children verses those having sex for pleasure is nearly negligible, a very small percentage compared to the whole. The majority of people having sex have no intention of producing offspring.

The simple solution to overpopulation is not birth limits, but effective control of reproduction for the individual. If men could be made fertile only when they chose to seek reproduction, and women could be fertile only when they consciously wish to produce offspring, then the population "boom" will vanish. Since it would require BOTH PARTIES conscious choice to produce a child, "accidental" pregnacies could not occur, and no-one could complain that the government was interfering.

Yes, it will require a technological solution to ensure this. Men will require a device to shut down the sperm production machinery, or to at least create sterile sperm until a conscious choice is made to activate it. Women will require a method of shutting down the reproductive cycle completely and conserve eggs until voluntarily restarting it. For the majority of women, I don't think eliminating periods and menopause would be that hideous an issue, so long as they know it is their own choice to restart it when they wish a child.

As for housing, technology will eventually supply a solution as well, even if we chose physical existance. A 10x10x10 room equipped with a food machine and utility fog could provide infinite virtual living space. Properly made, a food machine could draw the majority of needed materials from the air to produce food, and most material effects could be simulated via the utility fog.

as these developments are likely in a far shorter term than the issue of potential overpopulation, there is really not much point in being concerned with overpopulation, because a solution will be developed prior to it becoming a serious concern. However, to the common person, unaware of technological solutions and their nearness, it has to be addressed. Aubrey is acknowledging this, and suggesting that fewer children is a neccessity. This is inevitable, and true. It is also besides the point.

[Infernity]

To be blunt in a high technology affluent society, sex for reproduction is a near non issue. The percentage of people engaging in sex for the purpose of producing children verses those having sex for pleasure is nearly negligible, a very small percentage compared to the whole. The majority of people having sex have no intention of producing offspring.

The simple solution to overpopulation is not birth limits, but effective control of reproduction for the individual. If men could be made fertile only when they chose to seek reproduction, and women could be fertile only when they consciously wish to produce offspring, then the population "boom" will vanish. Since it would require BOTH PARTIES conscious choice to produce a child, "accidental" pregnacies could not occur, and no-one could complain that the government was interfering.

Yes, it will require a technological solution to ensure this. Men will require a device to shut down the sperm production machinery, or to at least create sterile sperm until a conscious choice is made to activate it. Women will require a method of shutting down the reproductive cycle completely and conserve eggs until voluntarily restarting it. For the majority of women, I don't think eliminating periods and menopause would be that hideous an issue, so long as they know it is their own choice to restart it when they wish a child.

As for housing, technology will eventually supply a solution as well, even if we chose physical existance. A 10x10x10 room equipped with a food machine and utility fog could provide infinite virtual living space. Properly made, a food machine could draw the majority of needed materials from the air to produce food, and most material effects could be simulated via the utility fog.

as these developments are likely in a far shorter term than the issue of potential overpopulation, there is really not much point in being concerned with overpopulation, because a solution will be developed prior to it becoming a serious concern. However, to the common person, unaware of technological solutions and their nearness, it has to be addressed. Aubrey is acknowledging this, and suggesting that fewer children is a neccessity. This is inevitable, and true. It is also besides the point.

Those descisions can't be censored, wanting/ not wanting... it involves many feelings and thoughts and it's never ultimate. That though, is one wonderful thing in us.

[TianZi]

The issue isn't how many people we can fit into the state of Texas or on empty places on the world map. It is whether, in a world in which population is no longer controlled by the mechanism of death by aging, the unrestricted "right" to breed is worth sacrificing the world's forests, oceans, and wild animals. Not to mention quality of life issues for those of us not enamored by the thought of living packed like sardines with the rest of humanity in one endless megalopolis. I believe our biosphere is an important part of our heritage and its preservation more important to humanity's remaining "human" than the species continuing to breed without restriction.

Defeating aging is something we might actually do within the next 15 years. Floating cities and similar fancies aren't anywhere on the horizon. We might defeat aging, and the Singularity never happen. And colonization of outer space might give those who were "ageless" and desired to move off-planet eventual procreational freedom (assuming their new homes could support unlimited population growth), but it does nothing for those who wish to continue living on this world and enjoying its natural beauty (in something other than virtual reality).

With the above said, restricting the ability to procreate isn't a preferred solution to me. It would be nice if economic incentives for low or zero child birth were sufficient. I don't think they would be, but they should be tried first. If an incentive system didn't work, next would be tying anti-aging treatments with sterilization as part of the same procedure--sterilization would be voluntary in this scenario.

Edited by TianZi, 13 March 2009 - 11:20 AM.

[Putz]

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.

I agree, Malthusian theory is obsolete, or possibly was never truly applicable to reality. Homo Sapiens has always raised the "carrying capacity" much faster than we reproduce. Sure there are isolated cases of resource scarcity but that is becoming less and less of an issue as the world becomes increasingly globalized due to information and goods transfer. Plow, Skyscraper, Green Revolution, Advanced Sewage systems, Genetic Engineering, Megastructures, Arcologies we will always raise the bar. Hell, even walking to the TV to change the channel was too much suffering for us so we engineered the remote control!

[Putz]

The issue isn't how many people we can fit into the state of Texas or on empty places on the world map. It is whether, in a world in which population is no longer controlled by the mechanism of death by aging, the unrestricted "right" to breed is worth sacrificing the world's forests, oceans, and wild animals. Not to mention quality of life issues for those of us not enamored by the thought of living packed like sardines with the rest of humanity in one endless megalopolis. I believe our biosphere is an important part of our heritage and its preservation more important to humanity's remaining "human" than the species continuing to breed without restriction.

Defeating aging is something we might actually do within the next 15 years. Floating cities and similar fancies aren't anywhere on the horizon. We might defeat aging, and the Singularity never happen. And colonization of outer space might give those who were "ageless" and desired to move off-planet eventual procreational freedom (assuming their new homes could support unlimited population growth), but it does nothing for those who wish to continue living on this world and enjoying its natural beauty (in something other than virtual reality).

With the above said, restricting the ability to procreate isn't a preferred solution to me. It would be nice if economic incentives for low or zero child birth were sufficient. I don't think they would be, but they should be tried first. If an incentive system didn't work, next would be tying anti-aging treatments with sterilization as part of the same procedure--sterilization would be voluntary in this scenario.

Actually arcologies can house massive amounts of people luxuriously, even with each person getting a massive atrium sized living space. As long as we utilize air via megastructures and arcologies to live in, grow our food in, manufacture our goods in, generate energy in, etc. ground will be freed up dramatically. Most of world is wilderness and even more will revert to wilderness as we move to an engineered existence.

Wildlife will flourish and much of it may possibly become "intelligent". Ray Kurzweil talks about eventual transformation of everything into intelligent computing material, that may be true but it will definitely not be a "grey goo" scenario. Rather wildlife will be exactly how it was before it became intelligent, but instead it would form this worldwide intelligent computing network as each plant and animal would have computing power within them. Like how humans in the future will largely voluntarily take the shape of homo sapiens and retain biological functions, so will animals and wildlife take the shape of creatures and plants and retain biological functions and maintain the ecosystem's natural cycles.

The future will probably be a colorful, blissful, and intelligent fusion of machine and biological evolution.

Edited by Putz, 16 March 2009 - 02:55 AM.

[automita]

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.

overpopulation is the future's problem we do the longevity issue they put us somewhere in ways we don't understand yet.

[Cameron]

Reproduction will eventually have to be controlled somehow. One could easily see how some future religions could cause trouble(for example there are already religions, that if I'm not mistaken, only allow for sex with the possibility of reproduction and without use of contraceptive means ), say one[ future religion] that says have as many babies as you can consecutively irregardless(say due to the advent of genetic engineering, eliminating inbreeding problems, it also allowed incest... so teenagers would also start mass producing babies... and hormones are used to speed the time to reproductive age.). Clearly that would be a problem, if left unchecked the members of said religion which at one time might be a minority would become a majority, and in a democracy their word would be law, they could even rewrite constitutions. They could then start reducing the quality of life for everyone.

Obviously, reproduction in an ageless society can be a means of generating voters and getting political power. This means that the groups with the greatest reproductive rates can more rapidly gain control of government... and it doesn't matter if it happens to be low-iq uneducated incestuous depraved mobs. Clearly society has to have the means to stop such nonsense before it no longer has the power to do anything about it[once said masses become the majority of voters], preemptive measures are necessary.

Edited by Cameron, 01 November 2009 - 08:05 AM.

[valkyrie_ice]

granting conscious control over the ability to reproduce will solve the issue entirely. If it takes BOTH PARTIES actively co-operating to produce offspring, thereby eliminating in one fell swoop the possibility of unwanted children, the issue is solved. Ideally, if fertility is only possible when a woman consciously chooses to have a period, consciously chooses to release an egg, and if the male has to consciously decide to produce non-sterile sperm, then not only does it disallow "accidents" but it requires a good deal more than JUST sex to make it happen, which should easily ensure that spur of the moment decisions don't happen.

With those conditions, birth control would never be an issue.

[27GV]

The sad thing is that a large proportion of those children that account for the high birth rates in impoverished areas will go on to be abandoned and become street children. Education and contraception may help, however a large proportion of street children may not be unplanned, but are still fairly unloved either due to the parent's inability to care for them financially (as opposed to not wanting them) or due to abuse by the often depressed parent. The even sadder thing (to me) is that most of these children are abandoned to the street at around 9 - 11 years old and thus the prime age for falling into crime and gangs to perpetuate the cycle of poverty. Even then there are vast differences between the situations of these children.

A boy I know in Indonesia that sleeps on the streets and only does so because his father is blind and he must work manual jobs to support the family, who are more loving than many I have seen in the West. He has many other siblings that I would guess have been raised mainly to support the family. Whilst not technology for "immortality," something that could alleviate blindness would allow for the father to work and thus the children to attain a true education. Say the father had received this cure for blindness just after he went blind and had only 2 children instead of 6.

However his income is still reliant upon manual labour. As soon as this stops due to frailty and age he will have almost no savings and will become reliant upon the incomes of his children to care for him into old age - more children equals greater support. Had the hypothetical 2 children been able to further their education and get relatively high paying work he may also be fine, however some form of social welfare would tend to be the best guarantee.

Though large families in that region also form the basis for a high quality of life. A good example is the family we also know there, started by a man who lost his whole family to the Japanese in WWII, married, had 6 kids who then had at least 3 children each and live in a compound with 1 other such multiple generation family. Although they make up such a large group of people, within the compound they had only one small, rarely used TV set, a few bicycles and a couple of motorbikes and would probably have about the same consumption of resources as a single nuclear family in the West - considering that they owned a few plantations of fruits also.

Why am I telling you this? Because population size is not really the problem, but how the population functions. Given the right technology, training and conditions this family - albeit very large - could end up being greater net producers of food. Of course then you strike the economic arguement that specialisation will deliver the greatest economic benefits all around, households specialise, evolve into businesses, cluster into areas to reduce costs and basically form what we have in the West.

Basically, serious population growth will last until someone can solve poverty, inequality and corruption - while technology of immortality may provide relief in isolated causes of poverty, such as aging and disability, the over-population problem will remain - not because a large population is fundamentally bad - but because this youth and opportunity as shown most brightly in street kids will continue to be wasted by an inefficient system.

Edited by 27GV, 29 November 2009 - 01:48 PM.

[Anonymous]

Do you think there would be enough space for everyone after 1,000,000 if we would keep it like this? And what about the nature?

We would probably need a population control in the future.

[SiliconAnimation]

Do you think there would be enough space for everyone after 1,000,000 if we would keep it like this? And what about the nature?

We would probably need a population control in the future.

Nuclear weaopns are to military strategy what population growth is to civil power. Before we can limit any population, the efficiency of automated labor has to surpass that of human labor.

Edited by SiliconAnimation, 30 November 2009 - 04:28 AM.

[niner]

Do you think there would be enough space for everyone after 1,000,000 if we would keep it like this? And what about the nature?

We would probably need a population control in the future.

Nuclear weaopns are to military strategy what population growth is to civil power. Before we can limit any population, the efficiency of automated labor has to surpass that of human labor.

Uhh, didn't that happen around 1890?

[SiliconAnimation]

With our existing global carbon footprint, it would be impossible to support continued population growth. I did a little investigating and found that if 6B people were fit into 1km2 arable land spaces, they could fit onto 22ish land masses the size of Texas, or 22ish Texas units. The resulting population would breathe so much air and use so many facilities that we would run out of oxygen.

Now, you can argue that better tech will save the day but, it isn't here yet. So until it is, we need to stop with the population growth before we are all forced to live in recycled paper homes and rationed a gallon of gasoline per week while the corporate fat-cats get all the wealth and work on engineering the next holocaust.

[RighteousReason]

The resulting population would breathe so much air and use so many facilities that we would run out of oxygen.

Please tell me this post was a joke

[SiliconAnimation]

The resulting population would breathe so much air and use so many facilities that we would run out of oxygen.

Please tell me this post was a joke

It might be. I need to know how much oxygen the earth produces to make up for the CO2 production for a comparison. I'm assuming that humans will be living on land able to be farmed for these stats. Of course, we could adopt a middle-eastern sort of society and start putting people in deserts and the like to make more space if we really wanted to.

Right now my stats are looking like this:
State of Texas: 696,241km2
Earth: 148,940,000km2
Arable land on earth: 15,742,958 or 22.6 Texas Units

Human oxygen req. 2.4 grams O2/min
2006 Global Industry Oxygen Consumption: 20,470,853,520 metric tonnes

Maximum population for 1km2 spaces per person on arable land: 6 Billion * 22.6 = 1.356 Trillion people
Average oxygen footprint per person 2006: 4.76 metric tonnes
Projected global oxygen consumption with 1.356 Trillion people on the earth: 642,557,346,600 or an increase of 97% of our 2006 carbon production (not counting human oxygen consumption) assuming present-day fuel technologies.

Firstly, if CO2 is a greenhouse gas then a 97% increase is not a good idea. Secondly the earth needs to create at least as much oxygen as is being consumed so that the 21% oxygen level doesn't go down. With a 97% increase of oxygen consumption, it would only take 16 years to reduce the global oxygen levels from 21% to 20% Life requires approx. 6% oxygen content to survive and oxygen levels on the ground are at about 14-16% in rural areas and as low as 12% in urban areas. After 160 years oxygen levels at the projected max population will be reduced from 21% to 11% and levels at ground level would probably be uninhabitable but, I'd expect people to start dropping dead from asphyxiation long before that.

The only exception to this is of course if lots of oxygen is going to be provided by photosynthetic plant life and plankton but, with forests being cleared for humans to inhabit, pollution and ozone holes we may face a shortage of reliable oxygen-producing lifeforms and I don't think we can produce oxygen ourselves yet.

Edited by SiliconAnimation, 09 December 2009 - 05:07 PM.

[SiliconAnimation]

Do you think there would be enough space for everyone after 1,000,000 if we would keep it like this? And what about the nature?

We would probably need a population control in the future.

Nuclear weaopns are to military strategy what population growth is to civil power. Before we can limit any population, the efficiency of automated labor has to surpass that of human labor.

Uhh, didn't that happen around 1890?

Obviously not, or population growth wouldn't be so valued.

[SiliconAnimation]

In the process of getting new stats. I got the 6 billion fitting into 22.6 places on the earth from a terrible source. Will have an update shortly.

[niner]

In the process of getting new stats. I got the 6 billion fitting into 22.6 places on the earth from a terrible source. Will have an update shortly.

You missed a factor of ten here too;

6 Billion * 22.6 = 1.356 Trillion 136 Billion people

For 6 billion people using 2.4g/m, I get 7.6e9 metric tons/year, which is less than the current industrial consumption of 20e9 metric tons. For what it's worth, which isn't much... Any computation of the number of people that Earth can support is going to have to be way way more sophisticated than this. I suspect that number will be a hell of a lot less than 100 billion, but that involves value judgments about things like ecosystems and wild places. And that is not very amenable to calculation.

[SiliconAnimation]

These stats need refining. I don't know global oxygen production, and I haven't calculated the reported human oxygen requirements. Land allocation is calculated assuming that people will want to live on arable land, rather than deserts, tundras, swamps, etc.

 Oxygen_Stats.JPG   68.92KB   10 downloads

[SiliconAnimation]

I think with the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere that it's safe to say that the earth cannot currently produce more than 20 million tonnes of oxygen per year. [edit] That is, if CO2 emission increases are mainly due to industrial production since the begining of the industrial revolution.

Edited by SiliconAnimation, 12 December 2009 - 12:21 AM.

[niner]

I think with the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere that it's safe to say that the earth cannot currently produce more than 20 million tonnes of oxygen per year.

That makes no sense at all. Oxygen is produce by plants, which consume CO2. Rising CO2 should make it easier to produce more O2. Above you said that industrial oxygen use was 20 Billion tonnes. That's a thousand times as much as the amount you now say that Earth can't make more than.

[SiliconAnimation]

I think with the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere that it's safe to say that the earth cannot currently produce more than 20 million tonnes of oxygen per year.

That makes no sense at all. Oxygen is produce by plants, which consume CO2. Rising CO2 should make it easier to produce more O2. Above you said that industrial oxygen use was 20 Billion tonnes. That's a thousand times as much as the amount you now say that Earth can't make more than.

Very astute. I'm making my estimate based on early 20th century industrial production though, since CO2 levels have been rising since the industrial revolution. It's a rough figure and, arguably those increases are related to non-industrial production. So yes, while 20 billion is a good estimate considering that industrial production isn't the major drive behind emission increases, 20 million might be a better estimate for early 20th century industrial factors.

[SiliconAnimation]

I think with the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere that it's safe to say that the earth cannot currently produce more than 20 million tonnes of oxygen per year.

That makes no sense at all. Oxygen is produce by plants, which consume CO2. Rising CO2 should make it easier to produce more O2. Above you said that industrial oxygen use was 20 Billion tonnes. That's a thousand times as much as the amount you now say that Earth can't make more than.

If more CO2 means that plant life will increase O2 production, we are in for a larger problem than my stats show. That would mean that our current oxygen supply is maintained by a more intensified biological product and that destruction of these producers will cut into our O2 production much more than they would have otherwise.

[shawn]

Maybe if people would figure out how to grow smaller people instead of giants then this would be a positive answer for the alleged overpopulation problem.
People half the size would eat half as much and could fit into much smaller spaces.
Look at the nanotechnology situation.....smaller is better.
People could be 3 feet tall and this would be fine as it is all a question of scale.

[Putz]

Maybe if people would figure out how to grow smaller people instead of giants then this would be a positive answer for the alleged overpopulation problem.
People half the size would eat half as much and could fit into much smaller spaces.
Look at the nanotechnology situation.....smaller is better.
People could be 3 feet tall and this would be fine as it is all a question of scale.

Wow

[robomoon]

Wow

A purely realistic observation and logic interpretation: the increasingly productive societies that are developing and using the utilities for life extension, longevity, reduced aging, better medicine, faster info tech, etc., also utilize stronger contraceptive devices and treatments against fertility. Thus, they will sooner or later disappear while the less productive societies keep on procreating to take over the whole planet Earth.

The observation: more immigrants settle in the developed countries. They work for less, procreate faster, and sprawl in financially quite affordable ways with their ancestral culture and religion. So they aren't spending much of their time and money on those expensive products and activities that include new technologies for life extension.

What's the most likely result: more than 10 Billion people, more than 7 Billion of them religious in ways that favor more procreation over those products and activities for life extension that support the individual person or small minorities. Life extension for the individual will continue to exist as an exotic luxury. The great majority goes to procreate, spread, consume, destroy, and die.

Let's not forget: the most promising advancements remain to be bound to a productive sort of space travel. That's without the big solar satellite business strategy, not the space elevator hype, and not the faulty logic to reduce overpopulation on Earth by human colonization of Mars. Those who truly make life extending advancements will exploit natural resources by microsized machines on the Moon to leave the limited resources on Earth behind.

Edited by robomoon, 13 April 2010 - 09:03 PM.

[N.T.M.]

I didn't bother reading the OP, nor am I familiar with Aubrey's proposed solution, but imo the obvious remedy is simply instituting a stipulation: life or kids. Big fucking deal. It's an easy choice.

[niner]

What's the most likely result: more than 10 Billion people, more than 7 Billion of them religious in ways that favor more procreation over those products and activities for life extension that support the individual person or small minorities. Life extension for the individual will continue to exist as an exotic luxury. The great majority goes to procreate, spread, consume, destroy, and die.

That's not what's happened any time that immigrants came to rich countries previously. At least in America, they have always assimilated within a generation or two and taken on the characteristics of society as a whole. Why should this not continue? Some memetic religions may be more resistant to assimilation than others, but I would think the best way to deal with this would be to encourage assimilation rather than breed xenophobia.

Let's not forget: the most promising advancements remain to be bound to a productive sort of space travel. That's without the big solar satellite business strategy, not the space elevator hype, and not the faulty logic to reduce overpopulation on Earth by human colonization of Mars. Those who truly make life extending advancements will exploit natural resources by microsized machines on the Moon to leave the limited resources on Earth behind.

Hmm. Leave the limited resources of Earth behind for a lunar paradise? I think I might prefer to stay on a planet that has the atmosphere, gravity, and length of day that my organism evolved for. Of course, all this could be simulated, given a large enough tin can.

[niner]

I didn't bother reading the OP, nor am I familiar with Aubrey's proposed solution, but imo the obvious remedy is simply instituting a stipulation: life or kids. Big fucking deal. It's an easy choice.

OK, it's safe to say you are in the "no kids" column. At least at the moment. It would be interesting to know where you stand on this question twenty or thirty years from now. (I'm guessing you are pretty young.)

[N.T.M.]

I didn't bother reading the OP, nor am I familiar with Aubrey's proposed solution, but imo the obvious remedy is simply instituting a stipulation: life or kids. Big fucking deal. It's an easy choice.

OK, it's safe to say you are in the "no kids" column. At least at the moment. It would be interesting to know where you stand on this question twenty or thirty years from now. (I'm guessing you are pretty young.)

Dude, I hate kids. I'll concede to that bias, but still: objectively it seems like the most palatable solution.