4 ms·
"Solving death" won’t help humanity. Isn’t that obvious to you?? For a starter, birth rates and death rates should be about the same otherwise it’s not sustain
by qsdf38100 2y ago
"Solving death" won’t help humanity. Isn’t that obvious to you??
For a starter, birth rates and death rates should be about the same otherwise it’s not sustainable. If you "solve death", birth rates will need to drop a lot.
Do you want to live in a world with almost no children? Just very old people all over the place. Sounds like a nightmare to me.
You need to let go, accept your mortality and leave some room for new humans to live. At some point you’ll have had your time, death is part of life.
- kevlened 2y ago> birth rates and death rates should be about the same otherwise it’s not sustainable In 1798, Thomas Malthus predicted famine due to overpopulation, because he didn't predict the discovery of nitrogen fixation, which allowed scaling food production. There are likely many technological leaps we've yet to make which will change your definition of sustainable.
- grugagag 2y agoAll technological leaps come at a cost. Future technological leaps have unknown costs.
- kevlened 2y agoTrue, but maintaining status quo has unknown opportunity costs.
- qsdf38100 2y agoDo you know about exponential growth? If birth and death rates are not about the same, it means the population will double every X years. You’ll need a major breakthrough in food production every X years. For ever. Even if we achieve that, at some point there just won’t be enough square meters on earth. But I guess it’s okay to you since we’ll have solved space travel and we’ll just send billions of people to Mars? Then other planetary systems? Then other galaxies? In any case, as I don’t buy we’ll ever be able to send billions of people to other planets, let alone make them habitable, this is exponential growth with finite ressources. Doesn’t sound sustainable to me.