3 ms·

> The problem of dying is a much more urgent problem than, say, overpopulation How are you not connecting overpopulation and longevity? The earth is already st

> The problem of dying is a much more urgent problem than, say, overpopulation How are you not connecting overpopulation and longevity? The earth is already straining, even with the current level of population and longevity. If no one is dying until they are 200, and increasingly consuming like the richer nations, we are going to be living miserable lives. Perhaps the people who advocate for longevity should spend a year in any one of the third world's populated cities and experience it first-hand.

ben_w 2y ago
If we live to 25 and have 5 kids, population goes up. If we live to 200 and have 1 kid, population goes down. > and increasingly consuming like the richer nations, we are going to be living miserable lives. Tautologically false; if the worst off are empowered to consume as we do now, those lives will be *amazing*. Also, the sustainability level of consumption depends on tech, not population. If we wound back to 1930 tech and population, we were reliant on coal and oil, we couldn't substitute other things for them — if peak oil/coal had happened in that decade, we'd have been stuck; now we're good, coal is being phased out as fast as we can build the alternatives, and we have partial alternatives for oil and are working on the reminder.