4 ms·

I don't consider myself a Mathusian... in fact I regularly use him as a strawman/punching bag when I'm flexing my poli-sci historical muscles over beer. But th

by rfrey 16y ago

I don't consider myself a Mathusian... in fact I regularly use him as a strawman/punching bag when I'm flexing my poli-sci historical muscles over beer. But the experiment has never been conducted with an immortal population, either, and his dire predictions seem a bit weightier with a bunch of 750-year-olds running around.

michaelchisari 16y ago
his dire predictions seem a bit weightier with a bunch of 750-year-olds running around. Not if those 750 year olds are in no hurry to have kids.
- rfrey 16y ago
  They wouldn't have to be in a hurry, they'd just have to be interested - if everybody has one kid at 150 years old, that's still 50% population growth per year when it stabilizes. It's certainly possible that much of the impetus driving us to want children stems from our own mortality, so maybe many people wouldn't want kids after long life became the norm. Or, maybe the psychological imperative would decline enough that some sort of lottery system would actually be acceptable.
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    And where do you think technology and resource creation and allocation will be in 750 years?
akanet 16y ago
I chose not to address societal implications of immortality not because they're not fascinating or relevant, but because people's immediate objections almost never have to do with "what happens to everyone else?" That said I think the population will definitely level out when people realize they have literally forever to have kids and that infinite children are actually a total pain in the ass to care for.
- zizee 16y ago
  Well, you could also let people choose between the two options: 1. Live forever + not allowed to have kids 2. Have kids and you are not allowed the wonder drug Of course, since I have already had kids I would want there to be an amnesty :-)
reasonattlm 16y ago
There are people modeling the demographics in a rigorous way, however: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20426616 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20426616 "A common objection against starting a large-scale biomedical war on aging is the fear of catastrophic population consequences (overpopulation). This fear is only exacerbated by the fact that no detailed demographic projections for radical life extension scenario have been conducted so far. This study explores different demographic scenarios and population projections, in order to clarify what could be the demographic consequences of a successful biomedical war on aging. A general conclusion of this study is that population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 100-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 60), the total population increases by 22% only (from 9.1 to 11.0 million). Moreover, if some members of society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.), then the total population size may even decrease over time. Thus, even in the case of the most radical life extension scenario, population growth could be relatively slow and may not necessarily lead to overpopulation. Therefore, the real concerns should be placed not on the threat of catastrophic population consequences (overpopulation), but rather on such potential obstacles to a success of biomedical war on aging, as scientific, organizational, and financial limitations."

by rfrey 16y ago

michaelchisari 16y ago

his dire predictions seem a bit weightier with a bunch of 750-year-olds running around. Not if those 750 year olds are in no hurry to have kids.

rfrey 16y ago
They wouldn't have to be in a hurry, they'd just have to be interested - if everybody has one kid at 150 years old, that's still 50% population growth per year when it stabilizes. It's certainly possible that much of the impetus driving us to want children stems from our own mortality, so maybe many people wouldn't want kids after long life became the norm. Or, maybe the psychological imperative would decline enough that some sort of lottery system would actually be acceptable.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  And where do you think technology and resource creation and allocation will be in 750 years?

akanet 16y ago

I chose not to address societal implications of immortality not because they're not fascinating or relevant, but because people's immediate objections almost never have to do with "what happens to everyone else?" That said I think the population will definitely level out when people realize they have literally forever to have kids and that infinite children are actually a total pain in the ass to care for.

zizee 16y ago
Well, you could also let people choose between the two options: 1. Live forever + not allowed to have kids 2. Have kids and you are not allowed the wonder drug Of course, since I have already had kids I would want there to be an amnesty :-)

reasonattlm 16y ago

There are people modeling the demographics in a rigorous way, however: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20426616 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20426616 "A common objection against starting a large-scale biomedical war on aging is the fear of catastrophic population consequences (overpopulation). This fear is only exacerbated by the fact that no detailed demographic projections for radical life extension scenario have been conducted so far. This study explores different demographic scenarios and population projections, in order to clarify what could be the demographic consequences of a successful biomedical war on aging. A general conclusion of this study is that population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 100-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 60), the total population increases by 22% only (from 9.1 to 11.0 million). Moreover, if some members of society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.), then the total population size may even decrease over time. Thus, even in the case of the most radical life extension scenario, population growth could be relatively slow and may not necessarily lead to overpopulation. Therefore, the real concerns should be placed not on the threat of catastrophic population consequences (overpopulation), but rather on such potential obstacles to a success of biomedical war on aging, as scientific, organizational, and financial limitations."