3 ms·

> But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear. Not at all. Many of the most densly populated regions in the worl

by i000 5y ago

> But the relationship between population growth and technological growth seems fairly clear. Not at all. Many of the most densly populated regions in the world are far from the most technologically developed. Many of the most innovative countries (e.g. Sweden) are also quite sparsely populated. > Sure. And that would be a choice. I see no issue with this scenario. I do. While not extinction in the traditional sense, the world were the last human was already born. I cannot imagine being part of it.

xvector 5y ago
> I cannot imagine being part of it. It would likely be temporary until we find a way to create more space and/or move to a synthetic medium. In either case, it would be a choice. If you think people would choose living forever over having kids, you yourself are implying that people would find living forever more meaningful than having children, thus not "depriving them of the meaningful aspects of their lives," but rather, introducing something more meaningful: the ability to enjoy life without the Damocles Sword of death. Bodily autonomy/choice ought to be a part of any society, and that includes dying when you choose to die. Who is anyone to tell an individual when they should die? The best we can do is give them the choice, as it's a deeply personal decision.
- i000 5y ago
  > If you think people would choose living forever over having kids, you yourself are implying that people would find living forever more meaningful than having children No, I am not saying this. Even if only a very small fraction of people decides to live forever (rather than having kids), after sufficient generations all genealogical lines will hit an immortal. Think of it as a human gene-drive. Even a small minority will change the world for everyone.
  - xvector 5y ago
    Sure, and that would be their choice. Who are we to infringe on the bodily choices of others?

by i000 5y ago

xvector 5y ago

> I cannot imagine being part of it. It would likely be temporary until we find a way to create more space and/or move to a synthetic medium. In either case, it would be a choice. If you think people would choose living forever over having kids, you yourself are implying that people would find living forever more meaningful than having children, thus not "depriving them of the meaningful aspects of their lives," but rather, introducing something more meaningful: the ability to enjoy life without the Damocles Sword of death. Bodily autonomy/choice ought to be a part of any society, and that includes dying when you choose to die. Who is anyone to tell an individual when they should die? The best we can do is give them the choice, as it's a deeply personal decision.

i000 5y ago
> If you think people would choose living forever over having kids, you yourself are implying that people would find living forever more meaningful than having children No, I am not saying this. Even if only a very small fraction of people decides to live forever (rather than having kids), after sufficient generations all genealogical lines will hit an immortal. Think of it as a human gene-drive. Even a small minority will change the world for everyone.
- xvector 5y ago
  Sure, and that would be their choice. Who are we to infringe on the bodily choices of others?