Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: What Happens If We Perfect Age Reversing?
ourlovecanlastforeve writes: With biologists getting closer and closer to reversing the aging process in human cells, the reality of greatly extended life draws closer. This brings up a very important conundrum: You can't tell people not to reproduce and you can't kill people to preserve resources and space. Even at our current growth rate there's not enough for everyone. Not enough food, not enough space, not enough medical care. If — no, when — age reversal becomes a reality, who gets to live? And if everyone gets to live, how will we provide for them?
Exodus from Earth. We need space ships to spread out in the galaxy!
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
You can't tell people not to reproduce and you can't kill people to preserve resources and space.
Sure we can. It might be morally reprehensible to do but it hasn't stopped people in power in the past as well as the present.
If it becomes necessary to tell people not to reproduce, the laws can be changed.
(More likely, though, it would be presented as a choice between being allowed to live indefinitely and being allowed to reproduce.)
It seems like before we worry about the implications of reversing aging we should see how age reversal even effects mortality. Cancers, dementia, and many other age related diseases might not even significantly change from their current rates.
Citation, Please.
We grow plenty of food. The problem isn't the quantity of food. It's distribution. We have plenty of space, as well. We just need to change our (American) notion of what "space" is.
But I would whole-heartedly support a "stop making fucking babies" measure.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
If everybody gets to live a very long time, then we run out of resources
If we figure out how to curb over-population and only the really old live, then we run out of viable sperm and eggs in a few generations
We will need to have people living 'normal' lifespans, unless we figure out how to dodge the who reproduction via sperm and eggs thing
The economics of the situation would probably lead to a self-selected wealthy group occupying the long-life slots and the rest of us toiling away as normal with our lifespans slightly adjusted from what we expect today in order to fill the breeders slot
It would probably make things easier all around if the breeders did not suspect that they could enjoy a long and healthy life
One thing that could potentially change this entire equation would be extending the range in which humans can live, whether it be orbital habitats, terraformed planets or cozy lintel asteroids. A that point ti would be really handy to have extremely long-lived humans taking the not quite as fast as light trips to our nearest stellar neighbors
But then, I tend to be an optimist
Wherever You Go, There You Are
I sincerely believe that is one bridge that is best to cross when you actually get to it... worrying about something like this is liable to only keep you from enjoying the life that you have, here and now.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It is the Star Trek universe. What you're missing is that this is not Earth. It is Ferenginar.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
What makes you think this magical treatment (which doesn't exist, and may never exist) will be available to everyone? Life extension/immortality would easily become the most valuable thing on earth. It would sell for a fortune, be used for political and financial gain, and generally be restricted to the super rich.
There won't be a population problem because the majority would be allowed to die.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
It's worse. At least the Ferengi didn't detonate thermal nuclear warheads within their atmosphere or knowingly cause harm to their body for pleasure.
Cause the Ferengi are wimps!
The assumption that people will reproduce if given the opportunity to live indefinitely is flawed.
For many people, the urge to reproduce is strongly motivated by the idea that we want something of ourselves to leave behind when we are gone: we want someone to care for us in our old age; someone to carry on our memory. For people in developing countries, having children is a way of having extra labor. If, however, we do not regard death as inevitable, then the motivation for reproduction is also reduced. The need for extra labor is also reduced, in that there will be more healthy adults of working age in the population.
That is not to say that nobody would choose to have children. There may be a period of adjustment where people would still have lots of kids out of habit and out of a desire to hedge one's bets, so to speak, but once people start hitting ages around 150 without signs of slowing down, most will quite likely start to realize they would be better off not reproducing.
But there's always the idea that the only way you can live forever is if you agree to not have children...I'd say there is no shortage of people who would take up that offer.
The whole premise is bull.
There is more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is mostly just politics such as feeding a SUV enough corn to feed a family of 10 for a day to simply drive to the mall and back or letting relief supplies get resold on the black market.
space? Are you kidding me? Huge sections of the earth are completely barren, with existing technology the USA could easily accommodate a thousand or even a million times its population and not run out. Maybe some tiny countries have issues but not the world in general. We aren't even building floating cities yet.
medicine mostly has the same issue as food and the complex relationship between patents and rights and patients who need the medicine. Some is genuinely expensive and difficult to produce. But even today street bums get better medical care than kings just 300 years ago. It will only improve.
All the earth needs to support far far more humans is cheap clean energy and automation. Nuclear fusion, cheap solar and similar technologies will likely be a reality before humans living forever. Same with completely autonomous and self contained manufacturing. Combine the two and you could create hydroponic fields thousands of layers deep tended by robots and powered by light from a fusion reactor. You could build complex mega cities capable of housing a billion people.
We need pre-natal IQ testing and mandatory abortions for those who fail to meet the required level of potential intelligence. Its not your right to procreate hap-haphazardly while uber-babies get fewer resources than they deserve.
>"You can't tell people not to reproduce "
Actually, yes you can. You can make it a requirement to have only X children or less if you want age extension... make it a choice. It is already illogical for people to think they have the "right" to make as many children as they want.
Exactly how many dozens of billions of people does this planet need?
For thousands of years humanity has had a pretty comfortable relationship with death (even two hundred years ago there were 'wakes' held in the family home for several days in many developed nations). Historically, attempting immortality has tended to go hand in hand with delusion, disconnection from reality, and/or mental illness. It is only recently (in historic terms) that death has become stigmatised rather than accepted as inevitable, and even welcomed as a natural and positive progression.
Even presuming that age reversal techniques will one day do more than allow us to be decrepit old people for longer, I will choose to die in my natural course and leave the earth to my descendants. Death doesn't have to be scary, it can be a positive choice to improve the world by my eventual absence. I will live on through the ripples of all my actions in nurturing the new generations. Attempts at immortality are still for the delusional, disconnected, and mentally ill.
In other words, lots of people don't have enough food.
No, in other words, lots of people have more government corruption than they need.
Lots of food aid gets delivered to famine nations in Africa, and it either rots on the docks (what the corrupt government doesn't use itself or give to its soldiers), or the surplus that would otherwise go to people who are not corrupt government or soldiers gets sold off to other nations in order to raise money to buy weapons for the soldiers.
In other words, exactly as the GP said: a distribution problem, but one unrelated to the mechanics of distribution, rather the politics of distribution.
..or, here's an alternate theory: The research will look very promising, then either some fatal flaw that kills people will be discovered, (ostensibly) halting all further research, or it'll just disappear from the news completely and never be heard about again, and anyone inquiring into it will run into a brick wall, beyond which they can discover nothing. It will be assumed that nothing more was done about it. Meanwhile the research goes on in secret, where only the rich and powerful have access to it. The 1% will live indefinitely, while the 99% live a measly 70-90 years on average. Anyone stumbling on the secret and attempting to develop it themselves 'for the benefit of all mankind' will be quietly hushed up, bought out, or suffer a tragic accident.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
SO yes this is true. The biggest waste of resources is animal production for food. A single cow uses approx 2000 gallons of water for every pound of meat produced. The same pound of beans takes approx 100 gallons.
Who cares?
Build more nuclear plants, and use the power to operate the desalination plants you also build.
BONUS! By removing sea water from the oceans for the purpose of desalination, you mitigate the ocean level rise due to global warming!
DOUBLE BONUS! By building nuclear plants, you mitigate the production of greenhouse gasses, reducing global warming!
TRIPLE BONUS! By having an excess of water, you can grow more cattle and crops and increase the planets carrying capacity!
QUADRUPLE BONUS! Excess fresh water allows you to address ongoing desertification!
Ching ching ching ching ching ... -- human net prosperity slot machine paying out
Imagine your 90 year old grandmother suddenly regressing in age a bit, with a restored mental and physical agility.
Frankly, that would be awesome. I can think of few things that would make me happier.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Too much of any good thing soon stops being a good thing.
I really enjoyed the fantasy novels of Anne Rice (e.g. "Interview with the Vampire") as she explored the topic of immortality in her characters to a philosophical degree. Vampires going out of their minds with the "burden" of immortality and looking for a way to die.
I believe what makes life special and precious is that it's finite.
You don't know how much you have in the bank and the happiest people you'll encounter are those who savour every moment they have like it was their last.
Turn that on it's head and life becomes valueless if you following my reasoning.
Complex systems, such as human bodies, often have a "bathtub curve" of failure probabilities. Numerous potential flaws are most likely at the start of the system's existence, which is why infant mortality and miscarriage remain noticeable even with the most advanced medical support. And as bodies age, more and more smaller flaws accumulate to cause more and more profound system problems. These range from vascular problems, likely to cause strokes and aneurysms, to the wear and tear on joints causing motion problems, to accumulated heavy metal poisoning and debris in the lungs, to the ongoing risk of cancers.
Until complete prevention or cures exist for all of those issues, it seems nonsensical to discuss the population issues of eternal life. Population _growth_ from people living even a decade longer is a much more real and noticeable issue in our economy and resources. So is the cost of medical care for those older people. We're already seeing problems with Medicare funding and elderly care being real economic and political problems in the USA. This is partly because, as we reach the far end of that "bathtub" curve for human beings, addressing one factor that might have killed people far earlier, such as very successful heart surgery and antibiotics for infections that used to kill older people easily, end when more complex and difficult problems finally occur.
I am, myself, old enough to feel these effects. They do accumulate.
1. You're talking billions of gallons of sea water, far more than we could put a dent in, even with thousands of desalination plants. Furthermore the water would just find its way back to the ocean anyway, because the Earth is a closed ecosystem. ...or was this post meant to be funny?
2. It may reduce *future* global warming, but there is still the problem of all the carbon currently in the atmosphere, as well as seawater acidification.
3. The cost to desalinate 2000 gallons of water is far more than the average person would be willing to pay for a bound of beef.
4. There will be no excess fresh water. Because of the costs, every gallon produced will already be owned by someone. Even if all that desalinated water was used to combat desertification, it's still not even in the ballpark of what would be required.
Trying to force more people to live in the absence of resources? You're basically still killing people, you're simply distancing yourselves from the act and washing your hands of the responsibility. Maybe the person who dies will not be the one who can afford longevity treatments; more likely it will be some poor bastard with a different skin color and hat in some distant foreign land. This doesn't seem to worry the people who believe that bearded men live in the sky.
On the whole, it would probably be more humane to just have everyone in the world play Russian Roulette once a year and thin the herd by 1/6th annually. Oh, wait, that would offend the people who believe that bearded men live in the sky.
Better yet, don't kill anyone, and incentivize population control. Oh, wait, that would offend the people who believe that bearded men live in the sky.
Maybe the best strategy is not to play the game (i.e. let people die naturally)? Even now we can prolong life medically for people that are effectively invalids and/or in chronic pain, but to what advantage? Many of them would be happy to be allowed to pass away. When medical care rises to the level that these people actually want to continue living, then maybe we can talk about longevity.
Death is not a bad option, really.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Although I am a proponent of nuclear power (and wind and solar and geothermal etc), you'd have to be REALLY bad at math to believe that the amount of water pulled from the oceans for desalination would have any meaningful impact on ocean levels.