The Future

[abaris]

So I don't see what your point is, really. Are you merely complaining about something without pointing to a better alternative?

My point is, in this world of ours, everything is a commodity. As long as it sells, it will be sold. And I don't see the silver lining on the horizon. So, if longevity is for sale, some people will buy it. And since they outlive pretty much everyone else, they will take advantage.

Even in cultures that are not as Ferengi as the American one, surgery lists get longer and longer if you haven't got the money to pay the surgeon out of your own pocket. Prosthetics are as simple as possible, if you rely on basic insurance. So what gives you the impression of longevity being any different?

Even now, the health departments admit that poor people die earlier than rich people. Problem is already there. It won't get any better without a change in society. And I don't see that.

[Excited Penguin]

So I don't see what your point is, really. Are you merely complaining about something without pointing to a better alternative?

My point is, in this world of ours, everything is a commodity. As long as it sells, it will be sold. And I don't see the silver lining on the horizon. So, if longevity is for sale, some people will buy it. And since they outlive pretty much everyone else, they will take advantage.

Even in cultures that are not as Ferengi as the American one, surgery lists get longer and longer if you haven't got the money to pay the surgeon out of your own pocket. Prosthetics are as simple as possible, if you rely on basic insurance. So what gives you the impression of longevity being any different?

I don't know, we'll just have to wait and see, I guess.

[drfuzzy]

I think it's both physical and mental, but if we're able to provide both mental and physical optimum health, the problem would disappear.

As for the population problem, it's a problem either way. I hardly think we can say people need to die so that there's enough resources for other people to live. How is that any different from saying we should kill large amounts of people right now so the rest can lead better lives? It's not really, except for the fact that in one case you're advocating killing them directly, and in the other indirectly. We've got to come up with solutions to the problem of increasing population/diminishing resources, but advocating not preventing death if we can is not the way to go about it.

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.

[Excited Penguin]

I think it's both physical and mental, but if we're able to provide both mental and physical optimum health, the problem would disappear.

As for the population problem, it's a problem either way. I hardly think we can say people need to die so that there's enough resources for other people to live. How is that any different from saying we should kill large amounts of people right now so the rest can lead better lives? It's not really, except for the fact that in one case you're advocating killing them directly, and in the other indirectly. We've got to come up with solutions to the problem of increasing population/diminishing resources, but advocating not preventing death if we can is not the way to go about it.

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.

[AFTT47]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh no, we'd be committing infanticide at record rates, or there would not be sufficient resources to sustain those who just stubbornly refuse to die and make way for new generations. This in turn would cause stagnation of our culture with stalled intellectual progress, art would become lifeless and boring, and then why would anyone want to go on living anyway?

The only way of avoiding the above scenario, short of sending billions of people to colonize the planet, or board a generation ship to the stars (a one-way journey in any case since there's no safe return to Earth gravity after a few years, so who wants to volunteer?) is to impose an arbitrary and mandatory cap on the human life-span. Ever see this movie?

---

---

Your argument is irrational. The whole point of reproduction is so that a species can survive. Ensuring indefinite lifespans would be the best way to do that.

As for your stagnation scenario, I find it ridiculous and baseless.

Slowing down reproduction -- which would be required with the great expansion of life-span lest we court overpopulation -- also reduces the variability of the gene-pool, all other things being equal.

This is why bacteria evolve faster than do insects, why insects evolve faster than do fish, and so on.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I predict that the future will culminate in the heat death of the universe.

Boru

[Excited Penguin]

Your argument is irrational. The whole point of reproduction is so that a species can survive. Ensuring indefinite lifespans would be the best way to do that.

As for your stagnation scenario, I find it ridiculous and baseless.

Slowing down reproduction -- which would be required with the great expansion of life-span lest we court overpopulation -- also reduces the variability of the gene-pool, all other things being equal.

This is why bacteria evolve faster than do insects, why insects evolve faster than do fish, and so on.

How would that be a bad thing? You would rather die to let evolution take its natural course?

[Excited Penguin]

I predict that the future will culminate in the heat death of the universe.

Boru

We're talking about the future of human society in particular, not of the universe in general.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Your argument is irrational. The whole point of reproduction is so that a species can survive. Ensuring indefinite lifespans would be the best way to do that.

As for your stagnation scenario, I find it ridiculous and baseless.

Slowing down reproduction -- which would be required with the great expansion of life-span lest we court overpopulation -- also reduces the variability of the gene-pool, all other things being equal.

This is why bacteria evolve faster than do insects, why insects evolve faster than do fish, and so on.

THIS! It has been at the forfront of my mind, but I didn't want to dump any more cold water than I already have on the wet dream of abolishing our life-span, which so many here share.

We're supposed to be the people who understand the science of how evolution works...*sigh*