3 ms·
A) We have already largely solved infant mortality in the developed world, and are making progress on the issue globally. Societies seem to adapt over time by d
by gizmo686 4y ago
A) We have already largely solved infant mortality in the developed world, and are making progress on the issue globally. Societies seem to adapt over time by decreasing birthrates to compensate [0]. In fact, in most of the developed world, birth rates are below replacement rate.
B) Despite all of the medical advances we have made, we have hardly put a dent in old age. Medical science has made great progress in stopping people from dieing young, which has pushed up the average lifespan. But a 100 year old today is still likely to die within a few years even with the most advanced medical treatment.
Having said that, at some point, we are likely to start making breakthroughs in maximum lifespan, which could very quickly put us back into rapid population growth. Eventually, we would probably see society adjust to the point that having any children is no longer expected of a typical human, but that could be a painful transition depending on how quickly we we go from a lifespan of ~100 to unbounded.
[0] Although it is not clear if this is directly related to infant mortality, or a response to broader economic changes,
- nullish_signal 4y agoThe guesses at what culture might look like in a fully-populated planet, beyond the reduction of birth rates, is a very interesting consideration.
- nullish_signal 4y agoI must add, a reply to my moaning about limitless exponential human growth that starts off with "We have already largely solved infant mortality in the developed world, and are making progress on the issue globally." ...certainly makes me feel feelings about population growth!!
- Dylan16807 4y agoThe immediate feelings you had before you read the second sentence are not good conversational material.
- tluyben2 4y agoYou have a lot of feelings about stuff that is. As I get older, that seems incredibly unproductive and I stopped doing that.
- Aeolun 4y agoI seem to remember reading that there is some limit to the age of the brain, separate from the mortality of the body. So even if you were to not die from any cause you’d be pretty much done after 150-170 years.
- delecti 4y agoI think it's a stretch to assume we know much about what happens to brains after just 120, let alone 150-170.
- gizmo686 4y agoSetting aside any specific mechanism, the overall point still seems plausible. Assuming we can prevent the primary causes of aging (e.g. telomer shortening), we will likely start to find other parts of human biology that start to fail, either because of additional aging mechanisms, or just limitations of the body's self-repair mechanisms. Human biology is incredibly complex, and there has been no evolutionary pressure for it to sustain itself beyond its natural biological clock. These problems are probably solvable eventually, but not until we live long enough to see them. Which problems means we will have at least a few generations of people die after the initial old-age cure.
- delecti 4y agoOh, absolutely. Once we "fix" dying of the normal reasons, I'm sure we'll start dying of all sorts of weird things. It just seems suspect to put a number like 150-170 on anything right now.
- tluyben2 4y agoWhere I live in the EU, people get old; 100 here is not so rare and there are many 90+. Most of them are healthy; walking the mountain for shopping daily and going to the bar for a shot or two in the morning. 0 of them want to live longer. Not because physical but because the mental agony of yet more time, see more horror. Think people who don’t have this issue underestimate how bored and ‘done’ most older people are. My grandparents (all 4) made close to 100 in good health and wanted out since 70. When you are young you want to live forever, when older I don’t think many people do.