(February 15, 2016 at 7:51 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:(February 15, 2016 at 7:45 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: Note that I didn't say people need to die, or we need to kill large amounts of people - - that was posted by another. The problem I see is reproduction. If lifespans increased, while the earth was still over 7 billion people, then the only answer (other than colonization) would be for most young couples to have NO children. We're not even talking limiting reproduction to one child . . . there would have to be a way for the population number to drop dramatically. (And remember that X billion people aren't going anywhere . . . they aren't dying off.) There would have to be a way to identify an optimal population number, something that safeguards natural resources and allows for the best for every child, and some measures would have to be in place to get there . . . and stay there. I don't know how that would be accomplished.
I don't know either, but that's no reason to let people die once you can prevent that from happening. We'll need to figure it out in due time, and maybe start talking about it well before it, since it's better to plan for these kinds of changes before hand to a certain extent than be overwhelmed with such extreme circumstances all at once.
Yeah, its not like this will happen suddenly without warning. There should be a decent amount of warning it is coming. There will probably be a lot of angst as people struggle to find a way to manage it. I personally wouldn't bitch about how much of a pain in the ass it is to deal with immortality.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein