5 ms·

Why do you think that population growth is a bad thing and giving up getting new kids is in any way a rational decision? Earth could easily carry 100 billion p

by chr1 4y ago

Why do you think that population growth is a bad thing and giving up getting new kids is in any way a rational decision? Earth could easily carry 100 billion people, we could build cities on venus and mars, and if people could live for thousands of years, 100 year journey to another star on a slow ship would become quite acceptable. Bedsides, In most places birth rate is already below replacement level, so longer lifespan is necessary to prevent population collapse.

shafyy 4y ago
> Bedsides, In most places birth rate is already below replacement level, so longer lifespan is necessary to prevent population collapse. No, it's not. Current estimates are that population will stabilize around 10bn people, not collapse: https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
hatch_q 4y ago
Just extrapolate what elderly (90+) contribute to society now. Before even thinking about longevity, we need to eradicate degenerative diseases that make old people useless in society - Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Dementia, Arthritis, ... There would also be a necessity to allow (and even force) euthanasia for people in persistent vegetative state.
- chr1 4y ago
  Longevity is not about keeping people with dementia alive indefinitely, it is about repairing damage caused by aging, before that can cause degenerative diseases, cancer, etc.
- andrewingram 4y ago
  Most of the diseases you’re describing are associated with ageing, if you can treat ageing their prevalence would likely be vastly reduced; not to mention that there wouldn’t really be a concept of “elderly” anymore, just people who’ve been alive longer.
wizofaus 4y ago
>Earth could easily carry 100 billion people Source? Based on what standard of living/level of technology? There was even a time I thought Julian Simon had a point, but in the years since then everything I've witnessed has suggested quite the opposite. The more of us there are it's just as likely a tiny percentage will destroy the planet for the rest of us than it is a few geniuses will help us invent our way out of trouble.

by chr1 4y ago

shafyy 4y ago

> Bedsides, In most places birth rate is already below replacement level, so longer lifespan is necessary to prevent population collapse. No, it's not. Current estimates are that population will stabilize around 10bn people, not collapse: https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth

hatch_q 4y ago

Just extrapolate what elderly (90+) contribute to society now. Before even thinking about longevity, we need to eradicate degenerative diseases that make old people useless in society - Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Dementia, Arthritis, ... There would also be a necessity to allow (and even force) euthanasia for people in persistent vegetative state.

chr1 4y ago
Longevity is not about keeping people with dementia alive indefinitely, it is about repairing damage caused by aging, before that can cause degenerative diseases, cancer, etc.
andrewingram 4y ago
Most of the diseases you’re describing are associated with ageing, if you can treat ageing their prevalence would likely be vastly reduced; not to mention that there wouldn’t really be a concept of “elderly” anymore, just people who’ve been alive longer.

wizofaus 4y ago

>Earth could easily carry 100 billion people Source? Based on what standard of living/level of technology? There was even a time I thought Julian Simon had a point, but in the years since then everything I've witnessed has suggested quite the opposite. The more of us there are it's just as likely a tiny percentage will destroy the planet for the rest of us than it is a few geniuses will help us invent our way out of trouble.