6 ms·

This is silly. Everyone was worried in the 1970's that the 1990's would have massive overcrowding and famines, but it didn't happen. Instead, the world popula

This is silly. Everyone was worried in the 1970's that the 1990's would have massive overcrowding and famines, but it didn't happen. Instead, the world population growth rate has begun to level off. Why? In affluent countries, people no longer have children out of necessity, but of desire. In fact, many first-world nations are actually now undergoing population contraction (Japan, much of Europe). If you eliminate aging across the world, the necessity of children will go away. People will only have children if they want them.

gte910h 16y ago
It's not just the first world. Women in even the poorest countries are simply just choosing to have less children.
biggitybones 16y ago
If people lived 10x longer than they do now, the birth rate would have to drop dramatically (my rudimentary math would assume that it would require 10% of the amount of births we have now) or you'd risk overcrowding. We'd end up with government controlling the number of children, possibly even a lottery system. The overcrowding worries of the 70s and 90s were not because of a 1200% increase, rather a 10-20% increase.
- gnaritas 16y ago
  > If people lived 10x longer than they do now, the birth rate would have to drop dramatically And it would, if you knew you'd live that long most wouldn't tie themselves down with kids while they're still young, they'd wait much much longer and go out and live life. As it stands now, if you don't have kids by the time you're 30 you risk not being able to have them at all and having to suffer though months of fertility treatments and such just to try.
  - biggitybones 16y ago
    The fact is, society would change drastically if this were to happen, so we can speculate all we want :) People could want kids for a variety of reasons (to pass on their genes, the utility of having children, etc) and you'd have to maintain that you could only have two children max at one point in your life to effectively replace yourselves and not increase the population. Not to mention if you'd want to have kids 2 or 3 times over, now that they're growth is only a small percentage of your total life.
  - simonsquiff 16y ago
    You're assuming most children are planned :)

gte910h 16y ago

It's not just the first world. Women in even the poorest countries are simply just choosing to have less children.

biggitybones 16y ago

If people lived 10x longer than they do now, the birth rate would have to drop dramatically (my rudimentary math would assume that it would require 10% of the amount of births we have now) or you'd risk overcrowding. We'd end up with government controlling the number of children, possibly even a lottery system. The overcrowding worries of the 70s and 90s were not because of a 1200% increase, rather a 10-20% increase.

gnaritas 16y ago
> If people lived 10x longer than they do now, the birth rate would have to drop dramatically And it would, if you knew you'd live that long most wouldn't tie themselves down with kids while they're still young, they'd wait much much longer and go out and live life. As it stands now, if you don't have kids by the time you're 30 you risk not being able to have them at all and having to suffer though months of fertility treatments and such just to try.
- biggitybones 16y ago
  The fact is, society would change drastically if this were to happen, so we can speculate all we want :) People could want kids for a variety of reasons (to pass on their genes, the utility of having children, etc) and you'd have to maintain that you could only have two children max at one point in your life to effectively replace yourselves and not increase the population. Not to mention if you'd want to have kids 2 or 3 times over, now that they're growth is only a small percentage of your total life.
- simonsquiff 16y ago
  You're assuming most children are planned :)