3 ms·
7 billion people having an unlimited number of offspring might put a bit of a strain on our natural resources. Or if you're going to halt all reproduction then
by ryandvm 15y ago
7 billion people having an unlimited number of offspring might put a bit of a strain on our natural resources. Or if you're going to halt all reproduction then you've just ended human evolution.
Those seem like good starting points for a discussion on the ramifications of immortality.
That said, I'm more of a shoot first, aim later kind of guy so I say go for it...
- pavel_lishin 15y ago> 7 billion people having an unlimited number of offspring This assumes that literally the only change will be that we won't die. Society changes to accomodate technology. Or do you have 13 siblings to help you work the family farm?
- michaelchisari 15y agoIf we continue in recent trends, people are having less and less children. We're heading towards negative population growth. http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/04/19/population_crash_ext2010 http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/04/19/population_cra...
- gte910h 15y agoPeople have vastly curtailed their childbearing world over: http://online.worldmag.com/2009/10/30/world-fertility-rates-in-decline/ http://online.worldmag.com/2009/10/30/world-fertility-rates-... Even with no death from aging/age-related diseases, insurance company actuaries still see you dying around 500-600. These two things together make me think this is all okay 1> Especially if fertility/birth defects no longer get worse with age, people will hold off on having kids. 2> It won't swell the world population as much as many think it will due to the fact that costs still limit people.