4 ms·

Extended life is great, provided you solve the problems of over-population / birth rate exceeding death rate, and resource depletion. The carrying capacity of

Extended life is great, provided you solve the problems of over-population / birth rate exceeding death rate, and resource depletion. The carrying capacity of the planet is limited. Technology and ideas don't replace physics and chemistry. So, can we radically extend life? Probably, with sufficient research. But without solving the other two issues it raises huge problems. Unless of course we're talking a tiny immortal class controlling all the world's wealth and dwindling resources, and the rest with no access to it.

julespitt 13y ago
Why are we limited to this planets resources exclusively?
- rizzom5000 13y ago
  I think the answer to that in the part where the parent mentions physics and chemistry. Until we can provably show that resources outside of Earth are available for human consumption, and within some range of feasibility; it's not valid to use the argument that the potential availability of said resources are a solution to the magnification of natural resource depletion on Earth caused by overpopulation.
  - julespitt 13y ago
    Resources outside of Earth are available for human consumption provably. Alas, just at astronomical prices presently. I understand that it is rather prudent to presume to act as if we are limited solely to Earth's resources - because we are right now - but to be reflexibly dismissive of space exploration as an avenue to be actively pursued to remedy such issues is simply not constructive.
    - richardjordan 13y ago
      Those prices are merely a proxy for the complexity and resources necessary to go and mine off-world resources. We need a highly complex economic and manufacturing system to remain in place for a long period despite increased pressures of resource depletion and overpopulation and the commensurate rise in instability; we need to use huge amounts of resources to create a space program - materials and energy; energy - all of the above requires huge petrochemical inputs which are finite and depleting rapidly. There was only 1 cubic mile of oil in the world and we're half way through it and what's left is being sucked out faster than ever before and is harder to get to (EROEI).
  - diminoten 13y ago
    I'm not convinced we can provably show that the resources on Earth aren't capable of sustaining a great many more people, albeit with a significantly different style of living.
    - richardjordan 13y ago
      Of course we can. 90% of food production is based on fossil fuel inputs. Fossil fuels flow rates have plateaued and will move to decline. Because of the increased demand of population that decline will be rapid and increase quickly. When that happens massive amounts of people will starve. This will create huge social dislocations which make the maintenance of a complex system capable of space exploration unlikely. But more basically you can add up energy consumption necessary to sustain any basic average standard of living sufficient to also maintain a functioning global economy, multiply it by population and compare it to the NOT proven reserves but net recoverable energy taking into account EROEI and it's not a good number. Google is your friend. Further, this ignores other essentials such as topsoil depletion, fresh water and NPK inputs - NPK inputs are very limited in quantity, depleting rapidly and incredibly energy intensive to recover. Exponential growth can't continue forever in nature.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        I disagree with this thinking, because it assumes no innovation, an assumption that is provably wrong, when it comes to humanity.
        richardjordan 13y ago
        No it doesn't assume no innovation. It's based on the fact that wishing for a magical elixir which will replace our dwindling resources is just that - wishful thinking.
        diminoten 13y ago
        It's not wishful thinking if every time humanity's faced any kind of such challenge, it's succeeded. Inductive reasoning? Sure. But not wishful thinking.
- coldtea 13y ago
  For the same reason you cannot buy a 300 feet yaught today.
dllthomas 13y ago
Technology and ideas do replace physics and chemistry when they improve efficiency. No comment, at the moment, on how that impacts the broader discussion.
- richardjordan 13y ago
  No they don't. Ideas don't replace energy. Once we run out of fossil fuel inputs to the system it's highly unlikely we can run things as we are doing.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Regarding the second half, I said I wasn't going to comment on the broader discussion. Regarding the first, though, if we need to produce X horsepower for Y hours, then we can do it by using Z gas + Z' gas, or Z gas plus an idea for a more efficient engine. Ideas absolutely replace energy. They can't, so far as I can see, replace the last bit of energy, but we're nowhere near that.
    - richardjordan 13y ago
      That makes no sense. You can't just wish energy into existence with an idea. Efficiency gains aren't going to cut it with the energy consumption dynamics we have.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        "You can't just wish energy into existence with an idea." Yes, I said as much. "Efficiency gains aren't going to cut it with the energy consumption dynamics we have." Maybe not; that's a broader question. The point is that you can displace some need for energy with efficiency gains or alternatives. The more energy you're using, the more of a difference an idea can make, since ideas tend to mean proportional improvements in efficiency (though not necessarily large proportions). Whether it's sufficient is a huge question that would require a lot more attention than I'm able to give this right now (which is why I've persisted in staying out of the mainline of the discussion here).
lbrandy 13y ago
Why can't we make an identical argument against all forms of medical research? Should we also stop cancer research?
- richardjordan 13y ago
  I am not suggesting we don't do this. Just highlighting that radical life extension poses unique problems which are an order of magnitude more serious to think through than regular medicine advances.
coldtea 13y ago
>Extended life is great, provided you solve the problems of over-population / birth rate exceeding death rate, and resource depletion. No need. This is just for those with the dough to spend. Who cares about the unwashed masses? To the people that will use this, upper middle class is like white trash.

julespitt 13y ago

Why are we limited to this planets resources exclusively?

rizzom5000 13y ago
I think the answer to that in the part where the parent mentions physics and chemistry. Until we can provably show that resources outside of Earth are available for human consumption, and within some range of feasibility; it's not valid to use the argument that the potential availability of said resources are a solution to the magnification of natural resource depletion on Earth caused by overpopulation.
- julespitt 13y ago
  Resources outside of Earth are available for human consumption provably. Alas, just at astronomical prices presently. I understand that it is rather prudent to presume to act as if we are limited solely to Earth's resources - because we are right now - but to be reflexibly dismissive of space exploration as an avenue to be actively pursued to remedy such issues is simply not constructive.
  - richardjordan 13y ago
    Those prices are merely a proxy for the complexity and resources necessary to go and mine off-world resources. We need a highly complex economic and manufacturing system to remain in place for a long period despite increased pressures of resource depletion and overpopulation and the commensurate rise in instability; we need to use huge amounts of resources to create a space program - materials and energy; energy - all of the above requires huge petrochemical inputs which are finite and depleting rapidly. There was only 1 cubic mile of oil in the world and we're half way through it and what's left is being sucked out faster than ever before and is harder to get to (EROEI).
- diminoten 13y ago
  I'm not convinced we can provably show that the resources on Earth aren't capable of sustaining a great many more people, albeit with a significantly different style of living.
  - richardjordan 13y ago
    Of course we can. 90% of food production is based on fossil fuel inputs. Fossil fuels flow rates have plateaued and will move to decline. Because of the increased demand of population that decline will be rapid and increase quickly. When that happens massive amounts of people will starve. This will create huge social dislocations which make the maintenance of a complex system capable of space exploration unlikely. But more basically you can add up energy consumption necessary to sustain any basic average standard of living sufficient to also maintain a functioning global economy, multiply it by population and compare it to the NOT proven reserves but net recoverable energy taking into account EROEI and it's not a good number. Google is your friend. Further, this ignores other essentials such as topsoil depletion, fresh water and NPK inputs - NPK inputs are very limited in quantity, depleting rapidly and incredibly energy intensive to recover. Exponential growth can't continue forever in nature.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      I disagree with this thinking, because it assumes no innovation, an assumption that is provably wrong, when it comes to humanity.
      - richardjordan 13y ago
        No it doesn't assume no innovation. It's based on the fact that wishing for a magical elixir which will replace our dwindling resources is just that - wishful thinking.
        diminoten 13y ago
        It's not wishful thinking if every time humanity's faced any kind of such challenge, it's succeeded. Inductive reasoning? Sure. But not wishful thinking.
coldtea 13y ago
For the same reason you cannot buy a 300 feet yaught today.

dllthomas 13y ago

Technology and ideas do replace physics and chemistry when they improve efficiency. No comment, at the moment, on how that impacts the broader discussion.

richardjordan 13y ago
No they don't. Ideas don't replace energy. Once we run out of fossil fuel inputs to the system it's highly unlikely we can run things as we are doing.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Regarding the second half, I said I wasn't going to comment on the broader discussion. Regarding the first, though, if we need to produce X horsepower for Y hours, then we can do it by using Z gas + Z' gas, or Z gas plus an idea for a more efficient engine. Ideas absolutely replace energy. They can't, so far as I can see, replace the last bit of energy, but we're nowhere near that.
  - richardjordan 13y ago
    That makes no sense. You can't just wish energy into existence with an idea. Efficiency gains aren't going to cut it with the energy consumption dynamics we have.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      "You can't just wish energy into existence with an idea." Yes, I said as much. "Efficiency gains aren't going to cut it with the energy consumption dynamics we have." Maybe not; that's a broader question. The point is that you can displace some need for energy with efficiency gains or alternatives. The more energy you're using, the more of a difference an idea can make, since ideas tend to mean proportional improvements in efficiency (though not necessarily large proportions). Whether it's sufficient is a huge question that would require a lot more attention than I'm able to give this right now (which is why I've persisted in staying out of the mainline of the discussion here).

lbrandy 13y ago

Why can't we make an identical argument against all forms of medical research? Should we also stop cancer research?

richardjordan 13y ago
I am not suggesting we don't do this. Just highlighting that radical life extension poses unique problems which are an order of magnitude more serious to think through than regular medicine advances.

coldtea 13y ago

>Extended life is great, provided you solve the problems of over-population / birth rate exceeding death rate, and resource depletion. No need. This is just for those with the dough to spend. Who cares about the unwashed masses? To the people that will use this, upper middle class is like white trash.