6 ms·

> human development will slow down: after all if it requires a generation of human scientists to die so that new ideas can be accepted then A worse problem is

by dmm 2y ago

> human development will slow down: after all if it requires a generation of human scientists to die so that new ideas can be accepted then A worse problem is that whatever generation is in control when immortality is achieved will rule the world forever. Falling fertility makes this even more likely.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> Falling fertility makes this even more likely. Falling fertility makes us extinct very soon. The idea that the youngest generation, raised by many generations to be dismissive or even outright hostile to fertility will, by some miracle, be the ones who say "no, I will have 2.1 children" is silly. And because it's falling fertility and not just "stable but below replacement fertility", demographic collapse comes quickly. and extinction within 200 years. If you're worried about immortality, then the good news is we don't even have enough time to figure it out.
- hooverd 2y ago
  You can blame older generations for sucking up all the housing and holding on until they die.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    I could blame them, but about 3 months ago I saw a headline here on Hacker News telling us that the government of Canada plans on having a population of 100 million within the next few decades (currently at 30ish million). The 70 million difference isn't old people. Quite clearly, looks like government policy.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      The Century Initiative is not government policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative
  - jimbokun 2y ago
    In the US can place much of the blame on local governments in progressive cities who refuse to allow more housing to be built.
    - hooverd 2y ago
      Local governments who are voted in by civic minded home owners.
- zer0tonin 2y ago
  A century ago, Earth had 4 times less humans. We can handle quite a few decades of low fertility.
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    The problem isn’t the absolute number of humans. The real issue is the dependency ratio.
    - mensetmanusman 2y ago
      Dependency rationalizes itself with acceleration of death rates.
      - pyuser583 2y ago
        I don’t know what “rationalizes” means, but more deaths don’t necessarily lower the dependency ratio. For example, a war would kill lots of young healthy soldiers, leaving even fewer people in to care for the old, young, and infirm. I’m guessing Ukrainian and Russian dependency ratios are getting worse and worse.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    China deliberately lowered its fertility to a below replacement level. A few decades later, they decided they wanted to raise it back up higher. They couldn't. They're not exactly wishy-washy, they happen to be one of the most authoritarian regimes on this planet, even if they understand the benefits of a velvet glove. If they couldn't raise it, why would you think anyone else can? And we're already at sub-replacement. The same people who make the next generation of people (as small as it is), are the ones who also raise that generation and instill their values in them. What does having one child teach that child about their parents' values? It teaches them that, at most, they should have just one. Or maybe even that they should have none at all. Not only is this a self-reinforcing problem, it accelerates. You don't have a few decades to solve this. Nor will "evolution" fix it as the other guy said. While some still have large families, it's not just the parents' own values that are instilled, but that of our society collectively. The many who have few or no children have far greater influence on the children of those families, than those families have on everyone else. Population is counter-intuitive, and none of you understand it.
- kiba 2y ago
  This is based on present trend and the current historical circumstance, not an inevitability of our development.
- axus 2y ago
  The homo genus has survived huge variations over the last 200k years. The likely global warming scenarios are very bad but extinction would need a major screwup with AI and/or genetic engineering. Evolutionary processes will prevent total extinction, even if "the next generation is raised" one way, new trends will emerge. A population of few thousand is enough for humanity to come back. Even if population dropped 50% every 30 years, it's still 500 years to get down that low. And we haven't even started trending downward yet.
- abrither 2y ago
  [flagged]
- whythre 2y ago
  The good news is those more likely to reproduce are automatically selected by evolution… since they are the only ones having children in any significant numbers.
- rurp 2y ago
  Things don't happen in a vacuum and trying to extrapolate current trends 100+ years into the future is a fool's errand. A couple decades ago everyone was worried about the opposite problem. Neither of us has any idea what the new worry will be in a few more decades. The earth currently has billions more people than are necessary to keep humanity going; there's plenty of slack in the current system. Yes societies will have to evolve if birthrates stay low for a while, but they always have to evolve and if populations ever did drop precipitously low people already know how to make more babies.
ryandrake 2y ago
Not only that, but the "cure for dying" will surely be priced such that only the already-wealthy elite of that generation will be able to afford it. It's not going to just be handed out to everyone.
- tavavex 2y ago
  Why not, actually? Why wouldn't it be at least somewhat related to the price of executing that life-prolonging procedure? The providers will surely want to sell it to the maximum number of customers in all countries. Even if you argue that this would go against the interests of the highest class, what could they do? Technology is pretty unstoppable, and individual actors are usually pretty bad at conspiring together unless there's something in it for everyone involved. Not to mention that there's not even a way to define what specific dollar amount moves you from "wealthy commoner" to the "wealthy elite", especially if taking into account different countries.
  - mlyle 2y ago
    > Why not, actually? Why wouldn't it be at least somewhat related to the price of executing that life-prolonging procedure? Odds are we're talking about a suite of many procedures, some of which are intrinsically very expensive and that humanity doesn't have the resources to provide to everyone. But if it's really cheap... > The providers will surely want to sell it to the maximum number of customers in all countries. The maximum profit point isn't likely to be just above that really cheap price. People would be willing to give a significant fraction of their wealth for a magic bullet life extension, and most of the world's population has no wealth. Providers' ability to perform price discrimination isn't going to be perfect.
  - saghm 2y ago
    > Why not, actually? Why wouldn't it be at least somewhat related to the price of executing that life-prolonging procedure? If it's anything like medical procedures that exist today, it sounds like at least in the US it will be impossible to afford without insurance, and therefore employment. "You can live forever, as long as you work forever" is exactly the amount of depressing I'd expect from real life.
rurp 2y ago
Yep and ossified control structures aren't exactly known for being flexible and well run in the long term. A permanent ruling class will almost certainly lead to a major collapse at some point, bringing down all of that fancy technology with it.
RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> will rule the world forever If by forever, you mean until they actually disappear from something they have failed to foresee or couldn’t avoid, then, yes maybe. Nothing is forever. Prolongating human life would probably barely make a dent in the grand scheme of things.

by dmm 2y ago

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> Falling fertility makes this even more likely. Falling fertility makes us extinct very soon. The idea that the youngest generation, raised by many generations to be dismissive or even outright hostile to fertility will, by some miracle, be the ones who say "no, I will have 2.1 children" is silly. And because it's falling fertility and not just "stable but below replacement fertility", demographic collapse comes quickly. and extinction within 200 years. If you're worried about immortality, then the good news is we don't even have enough time to figure it out.

hooverd 2y ago
You can blame older generations for sucking up all the housing and holding on until they die.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  I could blame them, but about 3 months ago I saw a headline here on Hacker News telling us that the government of Canada plans on having a population of 100 million within the next few decades (currently at 30ish million). The 70 million difference isn't old people. Quite clearly, looks like government policy.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    The Century Initiative is not government policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative
- jimbokun 2y ago
  In the US can place much of the blame on local governments in progressive cities who refuse to allow more housing to be built.
  - hooverd 2y ago
    Local governments who are voted in by civic minded home owners.
zer0tonin 2y ago
A century ago, Earth had 4 times less humans. We can handle quite a few decades of low fertility.
- pyuser583 2y ago
  The problem isn’t the absolute number of humans. The real issue is the dependency ratio.
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    Dependency rationalizes itself with acceleration of death rates.
    - pyuser583 2y ago
      I don’t know what “rationalizes” means, but more deaths don’t necessarily lower the dependency ratio. For example, a war would kill lots of young healthy soldiers, leaving even fewer people in to care for the old, young, and infirm. I’m guessing Ukrainian and Russian dependency ratios are getting worse and worse.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  China deliberately lowered its fertility to a below replacement level. A few decades later, they decided they wanted to raise it back up higher. They couldn't. They're not exactly wishy-washy, they happen to be one of the most authoritarian regimes on this planet, even if they understand the benefits of a velvet glove. If they couldn't raise it, why would you think anyone else can? And we're already at sub-replacement. The same people who make the next generation of people (as small as it is), are the ones who also raise that generation and instill their values in them. What does having one child teach that child about their parents' values? It teaches them that, at most, they should have just one. Or maybe even that they should have none at all. Not only is this a self-reinforcing problem, it accelerates. You don't have a few decades to solve this. Nor will "evolution" fix it as the other guy said. While some still have large families, it's not just the parents' own values that are instilled, but that of our society collectively. The many who have few or no children have far greater influence on the children of those families, than those families have on everyone else. Population is counter-intuitive, and none of you understand it.
kiba 2y ago
This is based on present trend and the current historical circumstance, not an inevitability of our development.
axus 2y ago
The homo genus has survived huge variations over the last 200k years. The likely global warming scenarios are very bad but extinction would need a major screwup with AI and/or genetic engineering. Evolutionary processes will prevent total extinction, even if "the next generation is raised" one way, new trends will emerge. A population of few thousand is enough for humanity to come back. Even if population dropped 50% every 30 years, it's still 500 years to get down that low. And we haven't even started trending downward yet.
abrither 2y ago
[flagged]
whythre 2y ago
The good news is those more likely to reproduce are automatically selected by evolution… since they are the only ones having children in any significant numbers.
rurp 2y ago
Things don't happen in a vacuum and trying to extrapolate current trends 100+ years into the future is a fool's errand. A couple decades ago everyone was worried about the opposite problem. Neither of us has any idea what the new worry will be in a few more decades. The earth currently has billions more people than are necessary to keep humanity going; there's plenty of slack in the current system. Yes societies will have to evolve if birthrates stay low for a while, but they always have to evolve and if populations ever did drop precipitously low people already know how to make more babies.

ryandrake 2y ago

Not only that, but the "cure for dying" will surely be priced such that only the already-wealthy elite of that generation will be able to afford it. It's not going to just be handed out to everyone.

tavavex 2y ago
Why not, actually? Why wouldn't it be at least somewhat related to the price of executing that life-prolonging procedure? The providers will surely want to sell it to the maximum number of customers in all countries. Even if you argue that this would go against the interests of the highest class, what could they do? Technology is pretty unstoppable, and individual actors are usually pretty bad at conspiring together unless there's something in it for everyone involved. Not to mention that there's not even a way to define what specific dollar amount moves you from "wealthy commoner" to the "wealthy elite", especially if taking into account different countries.
- mlyle 2y ago
  > Why not, actually? Why wouldn't it be at least somewhat related to the price of executing that life-prolonging procedure? Odds are we're talking about a suite of many procedures, some of which are intrinsically very expensive and that humanity doesn't have the resources to provide to everyone. But if it's really cheap... > The providers will surely want to sell it to the maximum number of customers in all countries. The maximum profit point isn't likely to be just above that really cheap price. People would be willing to give a significant fraction of their wealth for a magic bullet life extension, and most of the world's population has no wealth. Providers' ability to perform price discrimination isn't going to be perfect.
- saghm 2y ago
  > Why not, actually? Why wouldn't it be at least somewhat related to the price of executing that life-prolonging procedure? If it's anything like medical procedures that exist today, it sounds like at least in the US it will be impossible to afford without insurance, and therefore employment. "You can live forever, as long as you work forever" is exactly the amount of depressing I'd expect from real life.

rurp 2y ago

Yep and ossified control structures aren't exactly known for being flexible and well run in the long term. A permanent ruling class will almost certainly lead to a major collapse at some point, bringing down all of that fancy technology with it.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago

> will rule the world forever If by forever, you mean until they actually disappear from something they have failed to foresee or couldn’t avoid, then, yes maybe. Nothing is forever. Prolongating human life would probably barely make a dent in the grand scheme of things.