5 ms·

Think how many offspring you could spawn in a thousand years.

by joubert 18y ago

cabalamat 18y ago
There would probably be laws against that. If people were immortal, perhaps the law would say every two humans can have one child between them; that way population could only double once.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- newt0311 18y ago
  Doubt it. Population control laws are too unpopular and anybody over ~300 is probably very rich thanks if nothing else, due to the magic of compound interest. Since rich = powerful, it is unlikely that any population control measure would hold up well.
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    Right. And even if the docs make you get snipped in exchange for the immortality treatments, by then we'll be able to induce meiosis, combine and crossover genes with another and produce offspring anyhow, for the right price.
    - newt0311 18y ago
      Hard to tell if you are arguing against my point through sarcasm or supporting my point by covering a contingency. Weird.
      - rms 18y ago
        I call it hyper-cynicism, both of those points exist in a kind of quantum superposition.
      - stcredzero 18y ago
        I was supporting your point. What made it sarcastic, the use of "Right?"
  - Hexstream 18y ago
    If lots of people get "rich and powerful" all of a sudden, then the criteria for being considered "rich and powerful" will go up.
- ruby_roo 18y ago
  I'd let them do the snippity-snip in exchange for living to 150. Seriously, I want to see what happens, and I'm not interested in kids. Would rather adopt one if that bug ever bites, but I doubt it will.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  Why would one want population to stop growing? http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource
  - sadfsa 18y ago
    Because, unlike Julian Simon, some people know that the planet is made of matter, and they know about the Law of Matter/Energy Conservation, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and other physical properties of the Universe, any of which by itself would make it impossible for natural resources to be infinite. Some people have also heard the story of Rapa Nui, whose inhabitants discovered that natural resources are NOT infinite, shortly before their deaths.
    - DabAsteroid 18y ago
      Would it matter if humans were also creative of resources, rather than simply consumptive of resources? http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR04B.txt http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR0... Our whole evolution up to this point shows that human groups spontaneously evolve patterns of behavior, as well as patterns of training people for that behavior, which tend on balance to lead people to create rather than destroy. Humans are, on net balance, builders rather than destroyers. The evidence is clear: the civilization which our ancestors have bequeathed to us contains more created works than the civilization they were bequeathed. In short, humankind has evolved into creators and problem-solvers. Our constructive behavior has counted for more than our using-up and destructive behavior, as seen in our increasing length of life and richness of consumption. This view of the average human as builder conflicts with the view of the average human as destroyer which underlies the thought of many doomsdayers. From the latter view derive such statements as "The U.S. has 5 percent of the population, and uses 40 percent of resources," without reference to the creation of resources by the same U.S. population. (Also involved here is a view of resources as physical quantities waiting for the plucking, rather than as the services that humankind derives from some combination of knowledge with physical conditions.) If one notices only the using-up and destructive activities of humankind, without understanding that constructive patterns of behavior must have been the dominant part of our individual-cum-social nature in order for us to have survived to this point, then it is not surprising that one would arrive at the conclusion that resources will grow scarcer in the future.

Think how many offspring you could spawn in a thousand years.

by joubert 18y ago

Think how many offspring you could spawn in a thousand years.

There would probably be laws against that. If people were immortal, perhaps the law would say every two humans can have one child between them; that way population could only double once.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
newt0311 18y ago
Doubt it. Population control laws are too unpopular and anybody over ~300 is probably very rich thanks if nothing else, due to the magic of compound interest. Since rich = powerful, it is unlikely that any population control measure would hold up well.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  Right. And even if the docs make you get snipped in exchange for the immortality treatments, by then we'll be able to induce meiosis, combine and crossover genes with another and produce offspring anyhow, for the right price.
  - newt0311 18y ago
    Hard to tell if you are arguing against my point through sarcasm or supporting my point by covering a contingency. Weird.
    - rms 18y ago
      I call it hyper-cynicism, both of those points exist in a kind of quantum superposition.
    - stcredzero 18y ago
      I was supporting your point. What made it sarcastic, the use of "Right?"
- Hexstream 18y ago
  If lots of people get "rich and powerful" all of a sudden, then the criteria for being considered "rich and powerful" will go up.
ruby_roo 18y ago
I'd let them do the snippity-snip in exchange for living to 150. Seriously, I want to see what happens, and I'm not interested in kids. Would rather adopt one if that bug ever bites, but I doubt it will.
DabAsteroid 18y ago
Why would one want population to stop growing? http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource
- sadfsa 18y ago
  Because, unlike Julian Simon, some people know that the planet is made of matter, and they know about the Law of Matter/Energy Conservation, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and other physical properties of the Universe, any of which by itself would make it impossible for natural resources to be infinite. Some people have also heard the story of Rapa Nui, whose inhabitants discovered that natural resources are NOT infinite, shortly before their deaths.
  - DabAsteroid 18y ago
    Would it matter if humans were also creative of resources, rather than simply consumptive of resources? http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR04B.txt http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR0... Our whole evolution up to this point shows that human groups spontaneously evolve patterns of behavior, as well as patterns of training people for that behavior, which tend on balance to lead people to create rather than destroy. Humans are, on net balance, builders rather than destroyers. The evidence is clear: the civilization which our ancestors have bequeathed to us contains more created works than the civilization they were bequeathed. In short, humankind has evolved into creators and problem-solvers. Our constructive behavior has counted for more than our using-up and destructive behavior, as seen in our increasing length of life and richness of consumption. This view of the average human as builder conflicts with the view of the average human as destroyer which underlies the thought of many doomsdayers. From the latter view derive such statements as "The U.S. has 5 percent of the population, and uses 40 percent of resources," without reference to the creation of resources by the same U.S. population. (Also involved here is a view of resources as physical quantities waiting for the plucking, rather than as the services that humankind derives from some combination of knowledge with physical conditions.) If one notices only the using-up and destructive activities of humankind, without understanding that constructive patterns of behavior must have been the dominant part of our individual-cum-social nature in order for us to have survived to this point, then it is not surprising that one would arrive at the conclusion that resources will grow scarcer in the future.