Slashdot Mirror
Engineering An End to Aging
Reason writes "Biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey has put forward a biological engineering plan to end human aging and co-founded the Methuselah Mouse Prize in recent years. Now he is finally getting some of the public recognition he deserves in an excellent David Stipp article at Fortune Magazine. If you ever wondered exactly how to go about engineering away the 50 million deaths due to aging that occur each and every year - and how to bring about a sea change in the scientific establishment - then this is the place to start. As an added bonus, I don't think you'll find a more succinct (and utterly British) answer to overpopulation objections to life extension than the one at the end of this article!"
If people are going to stop dying they had best stop reproducing as well. There's already too many of you people breathing my air and eating my corn chips.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
As far as I know, from the Methuselah Mouse Prize, the current record holder (by a lot, mind you) has been people who have kept their mice alive the longest by keeping their mice healthy.
It's nice to think science will hold all the answers to everything, as (at least the USA) is obsessed with looking/staying young, but does anyone else see this as not realistic? Anyone else think that just staying as healthy and active as you can is the best way to go, rather than literally hoping for a miracle?
All I see is that this nanomedicine would pave the way for more intensive euthenasia - by logic of 'purifying' the race.
I'm all up for living longer (more video game time) - but, not at the cost of murdering the young children due to 'overpopulation' or letting the rich and smart and beautiful live while the unwanted die off early (in theirs 70s as compared to their 1100's)...
I personally don't think that humanity in general is responsible or ready to handle this technology - but who knows.
Are you against antibiotics, good nutrition and healthy water supplies? The increase of lifespan from 20ish to 70+ seems to have worked out for the best. In fact, the most developed countries have the lowest birth rates. Your grandkids may actually have a better life as I believe letting individual intellects age for many more decades will leed to more creativity and a brighter future.
Wow, how's that for not reading the article? The blurb even says it has his comments on the "overpopulation" argument. My view is: how in the FUCK will cloning or anti-aging have any MEASURABLE effect on population? I'ts the babies, man, and it's the babies of the pre-developing and developing countries in particular, which drive the population growth. Cloning and anti-aging will cost a LOT of money, for a long time, so few people will be trying it out.
And who the FUCK are you for saying I should not be allowed to live? Oh, you said "should not be allowed to live without aging." Well, if I can't reach 120 with aging, you're saying I should not be able to live to 120. You're telling me I should be required to die. I'm telling you to get lost.
[
I'd rather grow older and die, thank you. Natural processes and all that.
Do you also refuse medical care if you get ill? Natural processes and all that.
You can't take the sky from me...
Well, you generally don't die of "old age," but when you get older your susceptibility to certain diseases / conditions increases dramatically. Presumably, part of getting people to live forever would be to keep them in good health -- for instance, if you could halt the aging process at forty, people would be unlikely to fall prey to diseases that primarily affect the very old.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I sure hope Aubrey de Grey took the time to also engineer a new planet, or some other place for me to move to when I'm in my Yoda-years. I hate crowded planets.
Simpy
IQ is a very limited measure of a person's value to society. In fact, in my experience, the most socially valuable individuals tend to be found closer to the mean. I say this as a (lapsed) Triple-9 member.
1) The role of science fiction as inspiration for entire generations of scientists cannot be overstated. It's amazing how many scientists were inspired in their youth by hard science fiction, and equally amazing the number of previously fictional devices that have manifested as a direct result. This is dreams becoming reality, folks.
2) Before aging is stopped we have a serious problem of resource distribution and management on Earth to consider. Unless one believes the governments of Earth have just authority to implement national breeding policies (e.g. 1980s China, 1930s USA, 1940s Germany) people only dying from accident or crime might really turn Earth into the Easter Island metaphor that environmentalists so enjoy. Perhaps nanotechnology will mitigate or delay this problem long enough to allow for a solution, such as sea or space colonization, to be devised.
3) Consider the current problems of baby boomers vs youth culture in the US. Old folks will soon become a supermajority of the population, and won't die anytime soon as lifestyles get healthier and medical science progresses. Youth violence against those in older age brackets has steadily increased at a parallel rate. With indefinite lifespans and continued physical and mental acuity, this gap could create culture clashes everywhere, and will most likely result in revolution as the dissatisfied youth minority have their lives dictated to them by the ancient majority.
That is, of course, assuming He didn't leave the bag of tricks out in the open on purpose, to watch us discover His Creation in all its great depth and subtlety.
[
...then most likely the people who shouldn't be using it would be the ones to take it.
The last thing we need are for the idiots to live forever.
Well, ok, it could be a considerable problem if people stopped aging to death, but it wouldn't be the biggest problem.
The biggest problem is that our society would collapse from corruption. It's a pretty simple formula. Powerful people maintain their power by maintaining the status quo. The more powerful a person is, the stronger their grip on the status quo. These people purposely manipulate the opinions of the less powerful people (via control of the media and other less well-publicised means) in order to do this, and we generally fall for it pretty readily.
The only serious mechanism for social change is the death of the powerful. If death stopped being inevitable, then the rich and powerful would be the first ones to get that technology.
At that point, the only means for social change would become bloody revolution. Finding and killing the methuselas would become an obscession for anyone who wanted to change things for the better (or even at all).
I think that that world is inevitable, but I don't look forward to it.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Amusing, but think about the effects of people not just working for 30-40 years, but hundreds. A person could become experienced and knowledgable in a subject to levels which we can't imagine, and who knows what they could come up with.
Or a person could spend 50 years in a career, then take 5-10 off and learn something entirely new, then start a career there. Think about all the benefits that could come from that sort of inter-disciplinary work? What might someone who's been a chef, a writer, a materials engineer, and a chemist bring to a new job?
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
I doubt this is going to give real trouble. Consider this, if we're immortal all those long term problems (overpopulation, global warming,...) are suddenly problems we are going to suffer from and not just a nameless, faceless distant decendant. Doesn't that give you reason to start working on a decent solution?
Too many people will result in depletion of resources and overpopulation... I would prefer not to have that life for my grandkids one day.
Really? You are worried about your grandkids having problems with overpopulation? Are you "white" or of some european decent? You shouldn't be worried about overpopulation then, because people of european decent are dying out. Russians, Europeans, and Americans of European decent are all having less and less children.
While health care is better than it was 50 years ago, that doesn't make up for only having 1 or 2 children instead of 5 or 6. Reasons for less children are many, and they aren't going away. Things such as greater access to birth control, and social security (and such programs) to care for the elderly, etc. As populations move twards a western lifestyle, they reproduce less. There will be a breaking point in many countries when the old people who can no longer work need to be supported by a generation of young people half their size. This will in fact break socialism, social security, or whatever program the governments are using to take care of the elderly. The only solutions are mass immigration or a plague. Look at how the US is opening up it's borders despite it's terrorism problem.
If there is a scientific way to keep people from the effects of aging, it should be pursued so elderly people can still support themselves.
"So, for those of you who think this kind of research is a terrible thing, an affront to God and man -- please go off somewhere to die quietly."
I agree, but I don't think theists see it that way. Catholics and many other mainstream religions would probably consider refusing this type of medical care as suicide. The theory seems to be that God gave you this life and it would be ungrateful of you to throw away that gift. When God wants you to die, he will see to it.
I think many would feel that they had an obligation to continue life long after it had become not worth living. They expect terminal patients in continual pain to suffer on for the glory of God, after all.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Youth plays an important role in the dynamic growth and advancement of human culture. As we age we become loath to tear things down and start again. On the other hand stagnation leads to decay, and decay provides oportunity for revolution. Probably the old will all end up slaves to an over-class of young leaders who opt to die at an appropriate age.
As we shift our population balance, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Obviously the population is alrady starting to shift, and the shift is already having an impact.
Does this longevity include a increased period of fertility? If not then I wonder if the biological imperative to reproduce will produce a conflict that is not so easy to "cure" and I don't mean the incresing population, I mean the deep seated drive to make offspring being tempered by teh reality that 1100 years is a lot of offspring that one almost certainly cannot actually afford to raise. It might lead to some very complex problems. Even more weird if you live for 1100 years but can only produce offspring for the first 5% of them. Might make you go made. Might be very different for men and women. Might be _very_ scary.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
Wow, how's that for not reading the article? The blurb even says it has his comments on the "overpopulation" argument.
Uh, maybe some of us have read it and find the arguments unconvincing? Don't just uncritically accept everything you read.
He doesn't even address the overpopulation argument, he just points out what we lose from natural death. And he doesn't say where he gets his figures. When most people die we don't lose any valuable information. And he seems to assume that the person's assets are thrown into the furnace upon death.
IANAGE (I am not a genetics expert) but my experience of the universe tells against any "end to aging." All natural systems decay and breakdown.
With a system as complex as the human body, it seems unlikley that science will be able to overcome this decay. At the cellular level, there are millions of processes that are occurring every day to sustain life. Any one of these can go awry. Many do, and contribute to what we call aging.
It may be possible to lengthen life. Perhaps significantly (say a factor of 2) but I think perpetual youth is still... unlikley
When science "solves" entropy, get back to me
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
If people lived longer would we see an end to hatred.
I personally have no problem with people from Japan.
My grandfather disliked them, he lost a borther in WW2
My grandfather is dead.
If he lived to be 2,000 years would he ever get over this?
Would the Japanense who dislike Americas for the atmoic bomb ever get over it?
Death solves many problem including this one.
But of course people don't do this, because it is inherent in the nature of life to want to live
Oh, yeah, and your appeal to biology is quite wrong. During fetal development certain cells are programmed to die. During mating the male of certain species of spider intentionally touches the female in a way that triggers her to eat him starting with the head, his reproductive parts still locked on to hers. A species that decides to selfishly cling to life will soon become extinct.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
I almost shudder to imagine the wisdom and intelligence of a person who has lived 5000 years...
Ha... most people will be just as clueless after 5000 years as they are after 100. Really, 4900 years isn't going to make their brains any bigger, make them store more information, nor, most importantly, process and correlate that data any better. Unless of course we develop some "smart drugs" that do precisely that, there will be plenty of stupid and ignorant people around.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
Whenever the subject of interfering with nature / the divine plan comes up, I refer to this response which I heard one day in an interview: the single development in recorded history which has most vastly extended lifespans was the invention of the toilet... yet you don't hear people going around debating the morality of having toilets.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Most people don't rush off and have kids as soon as they can. Most people put it off until they see the end of their fertility approaching and then compromise on someone to have kids with. Yeah, I know it's unromantic but we're allowed occasional moments of honesty. If their fertility lasted longer they'd be happy, even eager, to wait.
But what is the capacity of the human brain? More than 25 years ago, I was writing HP/1000 assembly code; yet I certainly couldn't do that today without completely relearing it.
5000 years is won't happen without some major restructuring of society. As we currently have things set up you have a 50% chance of being involved in a fatal accident by the time you are 300.
The poor get everything last because new technology costs a lot of money - it takes time for the price to come down as techniques are perfected and businesses go after the lower income demographics. They got TVs last. They got cheaper heart surgery last. They got dialysis last. They'll get regenerative medicine last. But you know what? They will get it. They only way the poor don't get something is if people prevent new technology from being developed by saying that it'll only be available to the rich at first.
The people who want to live forever is because they're so embedded in the system that they cannot see the bigger picture. Why are we here?
I believe there is so much more to being in this planet working and paying bills.
You shouldn't be worried about overpopulation then, because people of european decent are dying out.
You forgot to observe that "dying out" is caused by people actually *DYING*. Take away the dying part, and you have population growth again, even if only one child is born to a couple. And of course, elimination of aging will extend the fertility period, thus increasing the chance that people will have more than one offspring.
If there is a scientific way to keep people from the effects of aging, it should be pursued so elderly people can still support themselves.
Yeah, and it will likely reduce the population of "elderly" people, as well, if you get what I mean.
- No hope for a new generation. Imagine generations of the living who still harbor grudges hundreds of years old. Just look at the Balkans, Middle East, etc. Sometimes the best hope is new generations with new perspectives.
- Now turnover in wealth. A perpetual economic ruling class would be established since they'd never have to pass on their wealth. Society would stratify more than ever.
- Medical costs would skyrocket at people accumulated injuries, side effects of the anti-aging process, the cost of the treatments, etc since voters in the US would demand equal access to the treatment.
- A drop in creativity as generations of people fixed in their ways of thinking never turn over.
- Population control would be essential. No avoiding this. Sorry, we won't be marching off by the millions to live in space or other planets.
- Rotten people would also live longer also
- Life in prison sentences would become unbearable burdens on society and an ethical nightmare
- Ennui will eventually hit everyone as life becomes ever more predictable
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Given the nature of what it would require to insure not aging (constant repair of every cell in the body) these treatments would have to start at least by age 25 for most people.
I can remember what I was like at that age...
With age comes wisdom as a result of the physical changes your body tends to force upon you. It's how we learn patience, empathy, logical progressive thought patterns, and so on and so on.
Are you telling me that someone is seriously considering making every twenty-something immortal?
[shudder]
Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
Though people may cite overpopulation and religious reasons why we shouldn't do this, those are just straw men.
The real reason is because this totally turns the natural order of things upside-fucking-down which will likely be to our detriment. If you only care about yourself as is human nature (and particularly reinforced by individualistic American values) then fine, try to live forever. But as far as our species is concerned, living forever is not necessarily the most advantageous. Of course no one can see all ends, but consider:
People living forever means less need for kids, which slows down evolution. Do we want to be strictly responsible for our own genetics? How do we identify practical genetic defects if we never die? Our existence as a species will then be dependent on the survival of a highly technological civilization which is far from guaranteed.
Take away the motivation of a limited lifespan and suddenly everything seems a lot less urgent. Motivation to learn, motivation to find the meaning of life, motivation to accomplish something. After all, you can always do it later.
How does the human brain develop at such extreme ages? We all know that people are shaped by childhood experience, and that many old people are set in their ways. With a huge population who 'have it all figured out' how will we continue to make progress? Periodic lobotomies?
I'm all for extending life through healthier living, but the quest for the fountain of youth is an egotistical obsession stemming from the fear of death. Personally I refuse to let the fear of death drive me to radical genetic techniques to extend the inevitable. I don't want to be some kind of artifically-preserved shell of a human, and I don't think anybody should want to (though I wouldn't stop them). What people need nowadays (in America anyway) is acceptance of the fact that we can't control everything. The best you can do is live your life well, make good decisions, and hopefully fate will be kind.
>
> But who would clean the toilets?
I'm in favor of a cull. But with exponential population growth, culling the bottom 75% isn't going to solve things for more than 100 years or so. That's a drop in the bucket if human lifespan can be extended to 1000. In order to be effective, the culling cannot be a one-time event -- it has to be a regular event.
Unless there are a lot of home toilets that are overflowing with mold and shit, I'd surmise that anyone who can keep their home toilet clean without help, is also capable of keeping the toilet at work (or at a restaurant) clean without help.
With a life span of 1000 years, the excuse of "I don't have time to clean up my own mess" falls pretty flat too.
Finally, it's a pretty easy case to make that anyone who regularly pisses on the seat or shits on the floor has problems, and if they compound those problems by being unwilling to grab a mop to clean up the mess just as they would at home, they've gone pretty far below the 75% threshold, and have automatically rendered themselves eligible for the next culling.
In short, if you could regularly cull the stupid and lazy from the face of the earth, the answer to the question "who would clean the toilets" is that failure to clean the toilets would rapidly become a self-correcting phenomenon.
Look at how the US is opening up it's borders despite it's terrorism problem.
Terrorism problems? Many countries prior to the precious United States of America have experienced terrorism. Perhaps the military fund could be better cut in half and used to fund a better standard of living instead? This is what encourages terrorism anyways, poor foreign policy.
If there is a scientific way to keep people from the effects of aging, it should be pursued so elderly people can still support themselves.
Support themselves? None of us support ourselves we are dependent on resources. The more people, the more resources depleted, simple fact.
Beyond that, maybe the US could embrace the Kyoto protocol to slow down the effects of aging. Since their is direct links to health effects and pollution.
Sorry, if this sounds as a rant, but this is the very reason why in 100 years we will have no fresh water or trees to produce the oxygen we breathe.
I think it's a horrible idea, and that those who think about tampering so drastically with the natural order of things should take a hard look at what they are saying.
We have enough problems with really really rich people living a long long time and making the rest of us miserable while enriching themselves, without making them live 1000 years. I shudder to think that Rupert Murdoch could live to be that old, or Ted Turner, or Rev Sun Yung Moon.
The old needs to be replaced with the new. Sometimes science doesn't advance until the old guys die off and the new guys run with their new ideas. People get opinions that they stick with until the day that they die, regardless of the evidence for or against. I see a stagnant, bleak world in our future if this happens.
How will we prevent overpopulation? (sorry, I don't have a subscription to fortune mag) Are we going to limit reproduction? So what we will have is a lot of people getting older and older, and very few babies being born? Is that really a world you want to live in? I sure don't.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
Most of us would like to live longer, healthy lives. But here's an important point that I haven't seen anyone make here yet: Aging is not a "disease" or a "wearing out" of the body. Aging and death is an extremely important evolutionary adaptation that promotes the ultimate survival of the species -- all species -- by limiting the number of generations that individuals typically span. We know that it is important because (a) we are beginning to understand the genetic programming and biological mechanisms that cause aging, and (b) we see that there are no species (as far as I am aware) that have survived without this programming and these mechanisms.
There are likely many reasons for this, but one that comes to mind is that species cannot adapt genetically very well if populations don't "turn over" at a reasonable rate. I know that this is true in computer simulations of evolutionary processes, because I've done quite a few myself. The ratio of average lifespan to generation length is a critical variable along with mutation rates and recombination frequencies; it has an optimum above which things just get muddy and fitness doesn't progress much over time.
I probably wouldn't pass up the opportunity myself either, but a "cure" for aging would almost certainly be a very bad thing for the future of mankind.
"It seems like there are always people who whine every time the subject of immortality comes up -- overpopulation, interfering with the divine plan, or just, "I wouldn't want to live forever. I'd get bored."
A key question is how much its going to cost for the gene therapy and how often it has to be done. If it becomes a reality its like to promote a new and extreme form of class warfare. The most often cited scenario is affluent members of the affluent nations will seek to acquire a monopoly on the treatment which is easier to do if its expensive, difficult and needs to be done often. You already have a milder form of this in the U.S. where the affluent typically get better medical care and live longer and better lives.
The wealthy are probably going to go to great lengths to make sure that they get the treatment while the poor, hungry and undesirable are denied access because it would place to great a pressure on Earth's resources, unless dramatic advances are made in food production, potable water and energy in particular.
You could also expect a resurgence in eugenics since if people start living hundreds or thousands of years there is going to be a much stronger incentive to prevent reproduction of individuals the society considers inferior. Its a dirty little secret but the U.S. was the worlds leader in eugenics before World War II and the Nazi's were following the U.S. more than leading in this field. It wasn't until the 1960's that "homes" for "morons" and "imbeciles" were shutdown in the U.S. The U.S. was also a leader in forced sterilization of people considered inferior.
Just think how ugly it will be if so the world's upper class achieve immortality while the have nots continue to die. The likely result will be the have nots using violence to break the haves hold on immortality.
As some have argued you might have long lived people who acquire vast knowledge and experience but you also dramatically reduce the motivation to have children. Today mortality is a key motivation for having children since it is the only avenue to a form of immortality. You have to wonder how tired, conservative and unimaginative the world will come if there is a dramatic reduction in the fresh, rebellious and unjaded approach to the world you find only in young people. Most people as they age become jaded, bored, boring and conservative.
@de_machina
Entropy will win in the end. The most you can do is delay the inevitable.
Most likely, living forever will require some very intensive regimen. Maybe less intensive as the centuries go by, but surely for the first subjects, it will be a serious pain in the ass. Injections (or their futuristic equivalent--transdermal sprays, nanofine needles, I don't know) every day, pills three times a day, trips to the doctor, trips to the pharmacy. You'll have to change your lifestyle, because I'm sure that at least the first few generations of these treatments will only be optimized for people who are still relatively healthy. So it is unlikely that, at least for the first few hundred years, you'll be able to eat as many Big Macs as you would like. And maybe they might disqualify you if you do something to yourself that causes damage. Either metabolically, by eating nothing but trans-saturated fats, or traumatically, like falling off of a cliff while rock-climbing.
And I bet you that bad things will happen if you happen to slack off on any of these things. Or that you physically, chemically, and biologically won't be able to continue once you reach a certain threshold of non-compliance to the regimen.
Not to mention that this will certainly cost a shitload of money. There will be very few immortals in the first few centuries, and the ironic thing is that they'll probably be disinclined to reproduce. (Assuming that this process doesn't render you sterile anyway.)
And if Western civilization gets set back somehow, a la the European Middle Ages, then you can kiss your immortality goodbye, because clearly something this intensive will require the infrastructure of a fully functioning civilization.
So, is it possible? Certainly. Is it probable? I'm a little less sure about that.
You can still always get killed in a car crash or by a bullet in the head. And it'll certainly take even longer to develop methods of reversing death than it will to develop methods of extending life.
And then, even if you can somehow keep from getting killed traumatically, and we somehow keep civilization from getting set back the way that human history so far demonstrates that it cyclically does, you still have to worry about that killer asteroid that has our name written on it. And if we get off the planet, there's the sun exploding. If we get to another star, the Milky Way will get sucked into the black hole at the galactic center. And then eventually, there's the heat death of the expanding universe.
Forever is a long time.
The anti-aging technology, if ever completed will stop the evolution of the species.
We've been messing with natural selection ever since the beginning of medicine; it's a bit late to object now.
Furthermore, this will probably only benefit the richest, not the fittest...
Maybe at first, but there was a time when only the rich, or only governments, could afford computers. In the US today, poor people have TVs that the wealthy could only dream of in the 50s. Anti-aging technology will start out expensive, but it won't stay that way--and besides, doesn't the idea of the wealthy being the beta testers appeal to your little class-warfare soul?
jazzer : "Terrorism problems? Many countries prior to the precious United States of America have experienced terrorism"
,imperialism and racism including the evil Europeans establishing apartheid in South Africa.
:"Perhaps the military fund could be better cut in half and used to fund a better standard of living instead? This is what encourages terrorism anyways, poor foreign policy. "
Your point being?
You foking, arrogant, American-hating Euro-creeps just make me sick!
Most of the world's problems WERE caused by European colonialism, neo-colonialsm,
You are just in no position to lecture America on morality of any kind.
jazzer
RUBBISH!
Bin Laden and most of his evil gang in Al quaeda are some of the richest human beings on the planet, not just in the Arab world.
Africa remains by far the poorest continent on the planet, but you don't find us driving planes into buildings and slaughtering 3000 innocent people in New York do you?
This is typical Euro-BS, full of appeasement and excuse making for terorists.
jazzer : "Beyond that, maybe the US could embrace the Kyoto protocol to slow down the effects of aging. Since their is direct links to health effects and pollution. "
Kyoto rotocal is based on bad science. Its simply yet another attempt by the evil Europreans to destroy the American economy. We won't be party to such nonsense.
And by the way, tell me, just how many EU members have actually signed and are abiding the Kyoto protocol? The answer is a big fat ZERO!
Its a bit rich for you European cazies to scream about so-caled Kyoto principle to America , while making sure you don't implement it yourselves, isn't it?
Thats gotta be the biggest con job going right now.
No really, it is. Any time anyone ever tries to tell you that the world is overpopulated, look at them funny, then calmly explain the following.
Every person in the entire world can be given 1000 sq. ft. of land all to themself, and all that land would fit inside of Texas.
World population: About 6 Billion
Land Area of Texas: 261,914 Square Miles (or about 1,912,428,000,000,000,000 (1.9 Quintillion) Square Feet)
Using handy dandy Google calculator on the following:
(261914^(.5)*5280)^2/6 billion
We get about 1217 Square Feet per PERSON if we only consider Texas.
This doesnt even begin to think about how much space every person would have if we built buildings so we could use multiple stories of space, or even if we divided the world down into family units that would live together.
Now granted it would be silly to put everyone into Texas, but the point is that it could be done, and you wouldn't be mashed up against 15 other people with literally only enough space to breathe.
Overpopulation is a myth, anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't been properly informed.
For an immortal, the consequences of any short-sighted decision WILL come to roost. Live your life exploiting other people? You WILL have to deal with those people, or their offspring later in life. (Or you WILL sooner or later make someone made enough to kill you.) Have a propensity for collecting junk? After a few hundred years, you are going to have a mountian of trash to clean up.
To an immortal, what you are paying at the pump right now doesn't mean squat. It's will the CO2 your Taho is shooting in the air flood his beach house in 100 years. Taxes today don't matter as much as the economic chaos that decades of deficit spending will cause.
To be an immortal requires a set of ethics that Jesus and Lao Tsu would be proud of. And it's not out of "goodness", it's out of self-preservation.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
This is as naive as the people who predicted a constant exponential growth - you're trying to predict a trend based on the last few data points. There's no reason to believe that industrialized nations cause themselves to die out. For one thing, the nations having the most problems (the Scandinavian countries) are beginning to push towards trying to encourage people to have more children (one of the countries suggested putting state sponsored porn on TV, if memory serves).
:_(
Porn is going to encourage people to have children? Now there is a backwards through if I ever saw one. The problem isn't a lack of sexual desire.
And you also forgot another one - late interest in children.
I didn't want to make a 5 page post out of it. There are several reasons for a population implosion. Late interest in children due to working mothers is one, another is lack of religon, lack of agriculture (no need for 10 kids to work the farm), de-valuation of the family unit, female liberation, increased acceptance of homosexuality, etc. That isn't even getting into increases in impotence, or people just choosing not to have children. I'm not saying these are all bad things, what I am saying is that western culture could bring about it's own death which would be sad.
Here's a thought experiment for you - what if it's not that people don't want children, but that people want children later in life?
that is only one small piece of the problem.
Fertility drops off significantly in the 40s,
Only for women.
so convolving the dropping fertility with a shift in the age at which people want children will naturally lead to a lower birth rate. The total number of average *desired* children might not be changing at all.
Ok, so say women can have babies until they are 50. I still don't think that will make a large difference in the grand scheme of things. It wont change 1.5 million abortions a year in the US alone, or how many children aren't born because of birth control. Again, I'm not saying these are bad things socially, but the are leading the US to a shrinking population.
But then what happens when science is able to significantly improve the fertility of those in their 40s? A boom happens all over again.
Unlikely. How many children are they going to have at 40? 1? Not only do you have to improve a women's chance to become pregnant, you have to do something about the greater miscarrage rate women have over 35.
Like I said, it's a little naive to say that the birth rate trend won't change. They thought this back in the 80s, as well. I'm sure they had just as impressive reasons
No, they didn't. Their reasoning was "People are fucking, people are going to continue to fuck". Sorry to put it so bluntly, but that was about the extent of it. I don't think in the 70's when "the population bomb" (or whatever the book was named) came out that they put much thought into what role abortion or womens rights might play with the population.
as we have for believing that the birth rate will continue along its (relatively recent) trend. But despite our arrogance, we really haven't figured out human societal trends yet.
Agreed it might not continue along it's trend, but I don't see any factors to stop it. Do you? Improved fertility will help, but that alone wont do it. Men and Women have to have the desire to have large families. They may have the desire to "do the deed" but they certainly don't want to deal with trying to raise a large family, at least here in the US. The best solution might be incentives from the government. As much as I like the idea of Free Porn (god bless the Scandinavian countries) I don't think that alone will do it. Perhaps the affected countries could make some kind of large finacial incentive for the middle class to have children. In the end, I think the US will solve it's problem VIA mass immigration.
Option 1: Reproduction only allowed for 'Finite-life-span' people
This option proposes a rule that people will only be allowed to have children if they agree to switch back to a 'finite' life span (presumably of some traditional duration like less than 100 years or so). That rule, in conjunction with a 'one-child-per-parent' rule, would prevent population explosion.
Option 2: Reproduction only allowed if you go off-planet at some point.
In this second option, indefinite-life-span people are allowed to reproduce on Earth, but after some specified duration, they have to leave the planet and 'retire' somewhere in outer space, in order to prevent population explosion.
As our technology for maintaining human health becomes more powerful, the population/reproduction issue will become critical at some point. People should remember that the same technology that can prevent aging will also be able to drastically reduce the probability of accidental death for a significant percentage of the population.
I'm curious if anyone else has thought of alternative ideas for dealing with the problem of reproduction with indefinite lifespan.
mhack
Building a better ribosome since 1997
Irony here is delicious. This post attacking the article actual makes a perfect argument for its reasonableness. Of course the above poster is probably to dim to perceive that or he would not have posted in the first place.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
I think the Brain's structure and biological limitations selected by evolution woul pose a limit to how many years a person can lead a normal life (you know, eating, farting, hangin out with friends, etc).
Besides the biological challenges, there are social challenges. The longevity meme site is a load of hyperbole. I don't buy a bit of it.
I am not for or against people trying to live longer. But, attacking the aging problem by keeping the body organs alive longer is not living longer. I can't imagine how ****ed up a 300 year or a 500 yr old omind would be. Unless there is a clear answer to why evolution lets people die and why we should stop that from happening, I would call this way too much of self-indulgence.
Science as a way of life.
So what is your metric for lazy? Laziness is arguably correlated but certainly not the same thing as intelligence. Now we're moving from the idea of keeping the most intelligent and instead keep the "most benificial to society". I'm pretty sure that the top 25% is not going to be comprised only of those people with the highest (or even high) IQ's.
Meanwhile, when you're busy mopping up a public restroom at a movie theater, would you mind washing the windows too? How about hopping out of the plane and directing it to the terminal? Or since you can't find any canned green beans at the store, how about you go to the back and find some, and restock the shelves while you're at it?
That's the ticket! Self-sufficiency! We can all just run our own farms... No offense to the man, but I don't think we'll be seeing Stephen Hawkins at any barn-raisings anytime soon.
Don't know why this one got modded down. Vampire the Masqerade is an excellent example of the kind of social dynamic that occurs when the old and powerful never pass away.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
You are confusing correlation with causation. The statisical correlation between low death rates and negative population growth only suggests that the two may be related in some way. It doesn't mean that one causes the other.
Demographers will tell you that what happens is something called a "Demographic Transition", where better medical care and living conditions (ie: less poverty) leads people to live longer, and fewer of their children to die, so they feel safe having fewer children. Also, a lot of poverty is also associated with rural living conditions (ie, poor farming villages), where having a lot of kids means lots of free labor to help the family survive by farming. Finally there is the lottery effect, were in a large family one kid might make it into the city and get a job that will support the whole rural family. All of these factors combine to create pressure on impoverished people to have larger families. In developed populations, the few people who have large families do it for other reasons.
If you look at demographic trends in developed countries over time, you see that death rates dropped first, while birth rates stayed high for a generation or so, then birth rates dropped. You will also see that this caused population booms.
As far as reducing population growth, the most effective way (aside from perhaps draconian laws) is to educate and provide work opportunities for improverished women. This gives them options and many of them will choose to do other things than fill their houses with babies.
If people lived longer would we see an end to hatred.
I don't know if you're an american, however, you don't need so see further than to the Iraq-war in order to falsify your statment!
For example: It's like you americans suddenly don't like the french because they wouldn't support your *stupid* war agains Iraq (where are the weapons of mass destruction?!?)
No, hate grows by itself.
Americans hate the French because deep down they know the only thing driving their actions is envy and a desire for undeserved attention.
Please, thats just stupid. How can you hate them? Btw, many americans throw in the "envy"-argument when being critisised, and thats just hilarious. Why should we envy you? West-Europe is just as good (or better!) to live in than USA. We feel no need to dominate the world.
This is why Americans hate the French and everyone else despises them. Because they are weasely, cowardly, short-sighted cretins who will support any tyrant, betray any friend, sacrifice any ideal to live in a fantasy world where they are still a leading nation instead of a U.N. security council anachronism.
If you hate all french, then I pity you. Honestly. You seem like a shallow person. Try analysing the reasons behind your hatred.
Your arguments are just as stupid as the americans effort to change the word "french fries" into "freedom fries". People die by the thousands, and you want to change a freaking word. Stop acting like children!
PS: Im not french.