5 ms·

There are way too many people for the available resources on Earth as it is. What's going to happen when old people can get younger and live indefinitely? I don

There are way too many people for the available resources on Earth as it is. What's going to happen when old people can get younger and live indefinitely? I don't mind as long as they live somewhere else.

epicureanideal 4y ago
Society spends a lot of resources educating people. This would mean society can get much greater ROI, possibly compensating with technological progress any additional resource consumption.
- layer8 4y ago
  On the other hand, think of career politicians and of dictators for life. Later-borns will have a hard time catching up to the experience, life-savviness, networks, and other moats, of the multi-centennials they’re competing against. Also, who will be allowed to have children when the population can’t grow indefinitely? Things could get pretty dystopian.
  - ip26 4y ago
    The basic social structure would have to be completely rethought. A good model might exist, we just don’t know what it is yet.
sieabahlpark 4y ago
[dead]
partiallypro 4y ago
> There are way too many people for the available resources on Earth as it is. This is just simply nonsense. A far -better- argument would be essentially Steve Job's take on death. Which was "I think death is the most wonderful invention of life. It purges the system of these old models that are obsolete....Without death, there would be very little progress." Your argument has been disproven countless times, and will continue to be.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
  I agree. I think people that envision a world without death as a good thing are basically insinuating that the quadrillions of phases of evolution that brought them the intelligence and ability and forethought to make that comment in the first place are no longer relevant anymore. “We have evolved as far as we need to” is the basic statement. To call that arrogant would be a charitable take.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > This is just simply nonsense. Your head is full of nonsense. Something like 85% of animal and plant diversity on Earth has disappeared in the last 50 years. According to a study by the World Wildlife Fund, more than a third of Earth's natural resources have been destroyed by humans in just thirty years. And yet deforestation has increased to an alarming rate. Have you heard of Climate Change? Guess what's causing that? It is estimated that humans use 173% of the earth's resources every year. You mind explaining how that is sustainable? We're pretty much screwed, and the last thing we need is more people.
  - Geee 4y ago
    None of this is a problem. Earth can easily support 1000x more people, and that should be our goal. We are the only intelligent species in this part of the universe, and we are the only species which can protect other lifeforms and take them to other planets. We should multiply and spread life throughout the galaxy. Biocapacity can be increased with technology and sustainable energy. Our impact on environment can be eliminated with technology and sustainable energy. These are not a problem at all; we just need to utilize more energy.
    - leaving 4y ago
      You are barking mad, son.
      - partiallypro 4y ago
        People have claimed humans couldn't sustain themselves for hundreds of years now, yet we have grown, and made major advancements to support more people. The air in many parts of the world is cleaner now than they were just 20 years ago, water is cleaner in many parts of the world than 30 years ago, etc. It's not like humans are stagnant. Things are actually getting better for most people on earth. Less poverty, less war, less hunger, less disease.
Winsaucerer 4y ago
> What's going to happen when old people can get younger and live indefinitely? I don't mind as long as they live somewhere else. If this happens, that's your future, you will be the old person that you're consigning to "live somewhere else".
- throwaway290 4y ago
  As the saying goes, time is a pyramid scheme. People who are alive when indefinite life becomes possible (if ever) will be at its top. It's a valid concern despite OP not noticing own chance of being a candidate for that role
BurningFrog 4y ago
And yet, as population continues to grow, people keep living longer and better lives. My interpretation is that the most important resource is not minerals or land, but people! The more people who work on improving things, the better the world becomes. 8 billion heads is better than [your preferred population number]!
avgcorrection 4y ago
For one thing, many developed nations would have solved their projected geriatric population problem where way more people are retired and have all those old-age health problems compared to the working population compared to today.

epicureanideal 4y ago

Society spends a lot of resources educating people. This would mean society can get much greater ROI, possibly compensating with technological progress any additional resource consumption.

layer8 4y ago
On the other hand, think of career politicians and of dictators for life. Later-borns will have a hard time catching up to the experience, life-savviness, networks, and other moats, of the multi-centennials they’re competing against. Also, who will be allowed to have children when the population can’t grow indefinitely? Things could get pretty dystopian.
- ip26 4y ago
  The basic social structure would have to be completely rethought. A good model might exist, we just don’t know what it is yet.

sieabahlpark 4y ago

[dead]

partiallypro 4y ago

> There are way too many people for the available resources on Earth as it is. This is just simply nonsense. A far -better- argument would be essentially Steve Job's take on death. Which was "I think death is the most wonderful invention of life. It purges the system of these old models that are obsolete....Without death, there would be very little progress." Your argument has been disproven countless times, and will continue to be.

SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
I agree. I think people that envision a world without death as a good thing are basically insinuating that the quadrillions of phases of evolution that brought them the intelligence and ability and forethought to make that comment in the first place are no longer relevant anymore. “We have evolved as far as we need to” is the basic statement. To call that arrogant would be a charitable take.
Maursault 4y ago
> This is just simply nonsense. Your head is full of nonsense. Something like 85% of animal and plant diversity on Earth has disappeared in the last 50 years. According to a study by the World Wildlife Fund, more than a third of Earth's natural resources have been destroyed by humans in just thirty years. And yet deforestation has increased to an alarming rate. Have you heard of Climate Change? Guess what's causing that? It is estimated that humans use 173% of the earth's resources every year. You mind explaining how that is sustainable? We're pretty much screwed, and the last thing we need is more people.
- Geee 4y ago
  None of this is a problem. Earth can easily support 1000x more people, and that should be our goal. We are the only intelligent species in this part of the universe, and we are the only species which can protect other lifeforms and take them to other planets. We should multiply and spread life throughout the galaxy. Biocapacity can be increased with technology and sustainable energy. Our impact on environment can be eliminated with technology and sustainable energy. These are not a problem at all; we just need to utilize more energy.
  - leaving 4y ago
    You are barking mad, son.
    - partiallypro 4y ago
      People have claimed humans couldn't sustain themselves for hundreds of years now, yet we have grown, and made major advancements to support more people. The air in many parts of the world is cleaner now than they were just 20 years ago, water is cleaner in many parts of the world than 30 years ago, etc. It's not like humans are stagnant. Things are actually getting better for most people on earth. Less poverty, less war, less hunger, less disease.

Winsaucerer 4y ago

> What's going to happen when old people can get younger and live indefinitely? I don't mind as long as they live somewhere else. If this happens, that's your future, you will be the old person that you're consigning to "live somewhere else".

throwaway290 4y ago
As the saying goes, time is a pyramid scheme. People who are alive when indefinite life becomes possible (if ever) will be at its top. It's a valid concern despite OP not noticing own chance of being a candidate for that role

BurningFrog 4y ago

And yet, as population continues to grow, people keep living longer and better lives. My interpretation is that the most important resource is not minerals or land, but people! The more people who work on improving things, the better the world becomes. 8 billion heads is better than [your preferred population number]!

avgcorrection 4y ago

For one thing, many developed nations would have solved their projected geriatric population problem where way more people are retired and have all those old-age health problems compared to the working population compared to today.