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

Photo
- - - - -

Overpopulation?


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#61 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 05 December 2007 - 06:12 PM

I was looking for some hope about how the future was going to look like and how i could find ways to radically extend my lifespan. Then i stumbled across this website. God bless google.

#62 singular_me

  • Guest
  • 26 posts
  • 0
  • Location:NY, NY

Posted 09 December 2007 - 07:59 PM

the overpopulation threat is made up by the powers-that-be... hundred years of life span will rightfully address the matters... who will be then in the hurry to have kids. It is already noticeable that the poor has more kids, because of his need to ensure his survival.

Plus right now there are plenty of spaces on earth. people concentrate around the big cities because cities drives money. but once we really enter the era of nanotech, this will also put things into place.

Of course masses will have to understand the inherent problem with power. Truth is not profitable, simple... hence wealth and domination are products of "mind manipulation" .

Technology is going to dematerialize this world - this is my prediction. Man is a spiritual creature above all, but first he has to master materialism. That is his karma.


http://www.singularityawareness.net

Edited by singular_me, 09 December 2007 - 08:09 PM.


#63

  • Lurker
  • -1

Posted 09 December 2007 - 09:34 PM

Nanotech is not necessary though may help. The idea of floating cities has been around for quite a while:
Posted Image
At one time these were suggested for mid-ocean where biodiversity is minimum and ecological impact
subsequently small.

I like your name, singular-me. With all this hype of seeking the singularity me thinks many disregard
respect for the singularity that exists now, the self. I agree that over-population is basically a ruse to
disregard personal responsibility and justify wanton behavior.

Your web site is interesting. I wish you luck and may become one of your customers.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#64 Boondock

  • Guest
  • 73 posts
  • 0

Posted 14 June 2009 - 03:58 PM

A very interesting thread, and a very important topic. It's been a couple of years since anyone has contributed anything, so I thought I'd chip in with a few points.

1. The overpopulation issue is at the same time a resource issue - they're two sides of the same coin. The only reason a population goes "over" its limits is because it begins to run out of readily available resources.

2. At current levels of technology, with current projected rises in population, we do face a problem. Cheap oil sources have peaked or will peak soon, many marine stocks are depleted to the point that they're unfishable, freshwater sources are limited and at least a cause for concern. Arable land is OK, but is set to experience a squeeze in the coming years.

3. Climate change must be taken into account in any analysis of this. It's almost undeniable that some degree of warming now will happen, and that this will have a net negative effect on crop production and freshwater sources (although some countries will benefit). If climate change becomes severe, the problems will of course be much greater.

4. The argument that "there have been fears before, and we are still OK" is a fallacy. You have to judge each situation on its own circumstances. The fact that previous population scares were misplaced does not mean that all population scares are so misplaced.

5. There are two solutions to the problem. One is to improve our technologies, the other is to reduce population. Reducing population in underdeveloped countries is very difficult, although it can be done (as China showed). It's unlikely that developing nations will be pressured into reducing their populations, and some for religious reasons will simply refuse to do so. Technological solutions are our best way out of a problem, although they're always somewhat speculative until they come into production, and not something you can "bet on".

6. Technologies are unlikely to solve all resource problems, and in my view very unlikely to solve the climate change problem - which will have a huge effect on global populations.

7. We do face a problem, and if not in the next 10 years then in the next 50 we will begin to see effects of overpopulation and signifcant climate change. The countries which are poor now will be affected most, while the OECD, and probably India and China (if high growth sustains) will likely get by.

#65 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 05 July 2009 - 05:34 PM

A comment on the overpopulation problem.... ;)

What an issue it is with overpopulation, when aging is cured there won't be any more kids. and that's perfectly fine, why should one replace A with B? people who disagree with that seriously need to work on a nursing home and watch old people screaming in pain dying of age-related disease. If you in a future scenario wouldn't accept to stop having kids in favor of living infinitely, then you are not an immortalist.

when aging is cured we have a few options (assuming we don't move into space)

1. Let people choose between dying of aging and having kids or get rejuvenated and sterilized

This won't be a good idea because when the people who had chosen kids instead of life get old and sick they won't accept their earlier choice. They will still do everything to get rejuvenation therapies. Human rights activists will make a huge hassle when cancer victims etc are denied therapies. So this is not going to work.

2. Rejuvenate people but put a limit of how long they are allowed to live so people can continue procreating and replacing each other.

This obviously is madness, actively killing people to leave room for others is so wrong that it doesn't need to be discussed further.

3. Forced sterilization

It simply doesn't matter. Regardless how horrible and tyrannic it sounds, continuing having aging is still millions of time worse. However I don't think it would be possible to do IRL. This is the only thing that doesn't involve letting people die. To me it wouldn't matter, life is more important than kids.



Kids are funny and I understand people having them, however what is not funny is to have them on behalf of letting old people die in agony, which would be the case if we continued having the "generational change" despite having access to real anti-aging treatments. (the world is already overpopulated and NO I don't want to live in a cage together with 100 billions of other people underground, I want a good ecosystem, fresh air and beautiful forests to walk and ride horses in)

So in conclusion let's face it, we can't have continued procreation in an age-less society, (assuming we don't move into other solar systems) but that won't happen until long long long after aging has been cured.

If anyone agrees/disagrees please comment ;)

#66 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 05 July 2009 - 06:57 PM

A comment on the overpopulation problem.... ;)

What an issue it is with overpopulation, when aging is cured there won't be any more kids. and that's perfectly fine, why should one replace A with B? people who disagree with that seriously need to work on a nursing home and watch old people screaming in pain dying of age-related disease. If you in a future scenario wouldn't accept to stop having kids in favor of living infinitely, then you are not an immortalist.

when aging is cured we have a few options (assuming we don't move into space)

1. Let people choose between dying of aging and having kids or get rejuvenated and sterilized

This won't be a good idea because when the people who had chosen kids instead of life get old and sick they won't accept their earlier choice. They will still do everything to get rejuvenation therapies. Human rights activists will make a huge hassle when cancer victims etc are denied therapies. So this is not going to work.

2. Rejuvenate people but put a limit of how long they are allowed to live so people can continue procreating and replacing each other.

This obviously is madness, actively killing people to leave room for others is so wrong that it doesn't need to be discussed further.

3. Forced sterilization

It simply doesn't matter. Regardless how horrible and tyrannic it sounds, continuing having aging is still millions of time worse. However I don't think it would be possible to do IRL. This is the only thing that doesn't involve letting people die. To me it wouldn't matter, life is more important than kids.



Kids are funny and I understand people having them, however what is not funny is to have them on behalf of letting old people die in agony, which would be the case if we continued having the "generational change" despite having access to real anti-aging treatments. (the world is already overpopulated and NO I don't want to live in a cage together with 100 billions of other people underground, I want a good ecosystem, fresh air and beautiful forests to walk and ride horses in)

So in conclusion let's face it, we can't have continued procreation in an age-less society, (assuming we don't move into other solar systems) but that won't happen until long long long after aging has been cured.

If anyone agrees/disagrees please comment :)


I came to the same conclusion as you which is simply we can't have more than say one kid if we really plan on living indefinitely. The colonization of space won't happen for a really really long time as you said, and that is truly a shame. How do the really long lived tortoises do it? I suppose they don't breed as quickly as humans ;)

#67 marainein

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Australia

Posted 06 July 2009 - 03:59 AM

I came to the same conclusion as you which is simply we can't have more than say one kid if we really plan on living indefinitely. The colonization of space won't happen for a really really long time as you said, and that is truly a shame. How do the really long lived tortoises do it? I suppose they don't breed as quickly as humans ;)


Actually we can't even have a single kid each, if we want to live indefinitely (think about it: if I have a kid, then they have a kid, then they have a kid, etc, and none of us die, the population is going to keep increasing). Birth rate has to equal death rate for population stability. There'd still be some death, so some people could have children - maybe there'd be a queue you'd have to join to do that. But if there were a lot of people wanting to have kids and the death rate was very low, it could be a very long wait.

Re: forced sterilization - one of the serendipitous side effects of Aubrey de Grey's anti-cancer treatment in SENS is that it will leave rejuvenated people infertile and unable to have children without the aid of a clinic - which will make enforcement of the 'rejuvenate or reproduce but not both' thing a lot easier.

#68 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 06 July 2009 - 04:26 AM

What an issue it is with overpopulation, when aging is cured there won't be any more kids. and that's perfectly fine, why should one replace A with B? people who disagree with that seriously need to work on a nursing home and watch old people screaming in pain dying of age-related disease. If you in a future scenario wouldn't accept to stop having kids in favor of living infinitely, then you are not an immortalist.

There's another option besides not reproducing and screaming in pain. Death could be painless. If the nursing home or hospice is doing its job right, these days pain can be controlled pretty well. Honestly, we have some really nutty ideas about death; we would never put an animal through the kind of suffering that we regularly impose on doomed humans. If the entire world were brought up to the economic and educational level of the most developed countries today, we could expect population to begin to fall rather than rise. People in modern societies seem to naturally choose to reproduce at something below the replacement rate. Obviously, as people start living longer, the "replacement rate" will change, and at some point reproduction may outstrip it. The quesion is: how fast will these changes occur? Meanwhile, some number of people may well choose not to live forever. At this point in time, we have no idea how many people will choose to stop living at some point in their extremely long lives. People will still die due to accidents, murder, or perhaps even rare diseases. I don't think that overpopulation is the biggest problem that immortalism faces.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#69 kurdishfella

  • Guest
  • 2,397 posts
  • -71
  • Location:russia
  • NO

Posted 26 June 2022 - 06:56 PM

Maybe it is possible to put something in the food or water that makes people less horny or more in certain countries with declining population.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users