Living long enough to live forever

Living long enough to live forever, ... are a lot of people NOT dying?

Options

hyzmarca

Apr 12 2006, 07:25 PM

Post #51

Midnight Toker

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456

QUOTE (El_Machinae)

The alternative is advocating genocide of older people, and that's not morally acceptable.

It doesn't have to be genocide of old people. There are also the racially inferior and the unwanted infants to consider. Genocide against the inferior races is one of the more obvious solutions while legalizing infantacide would go very far toward reducing overpopulation.

However, if true immortality can be achieved the problem will solve itself.

QUOTE (Consuella)

Penile erection was one of the many unsolved evolutionary mysteries surrounding sexuality. Every society had an elaborate subculture devoted to erotic stimulation. But nobody could quite determine how this...
[points to a diagram of a limp penis and scrotum]
becomes this.
[points to a diagram of an erect penis and scrotum]
Of course, we all know the physical process involved, but not the link between stimulus and response. There seems to be a correlation with violence, with fear. Many hanged men died with an erection. You are all more or less aware of our intensive researches into this subject. Sexuality declined probably because we no longer needed to procreate. Eternals soon discovered that erection was impossible to achieve. And we are no longer victims of this violent, convulsive act which so debased women and betrayed men. This brutal,
[Sean Connery]
like other primates living unselfconscious lives, is capable of spontaneous and reflexive erection. As part of May's studies of this creature, we're trying to find, once again, the link between erotic stimulation and erection. This experiment will measure autoerotic stimulation of the cortex, leading to erection.

nezumi View Member Profile	Apr 12 2006, 07:52 PM Post #52
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760	Oh dear God! If we live forever, lesbians will take over the world, and we'll be able to do nothing! NOTHING!!! (Nitpick: It's most likely spelled 'Consuela'. It's a Latin name. In Spanish the double l is pronounced 'y'.)

Arkelias

Apr 12 2006, 10:22 PM

Post #53

Target

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 847

QUOTE (El_Machinae @ Apr 12 2006, 05:49 PM)

QUOTE

El_Machinae, what about population growth? If you increase the average lifespan significantly, but do nothing to decrease the birth rate we're screwed.

Population growth nowadays is already a problem, regardless of the death rate. Our civilization can handle a certain growth rate, but the technologies that increase sustainability will only grow so quickly (they will grow more quickly if people make an effort to increase them). I'm quite sure we're above the 'survivable' growth rate right now. Which means that birthrates will have to come down, regardless.

Here's a question for you, though. Suppose there was an anti-aging treatment - how many children would you have? Would you take any steps to make the world more sustainable, long term? Would you take steps to reduce the growth rate?

Why assume that everyone who would get the treatment wouldn't have the same logic process you do? If you never age, all that you need to do to 'balance' the growth rate is to not have as many children, only have children when you know the species can afford them (which is tied to when you can afford them). What's the 'resource competition' difference between you being around in 200 years or your offspring being around in 200 years? Not much.

The population growth rate needs to come down. In first world countries, we have tied wealth directly to not reproducing, and so increasing this trend in the world will have a similar effect. The alternative is advocating genocide of older people, and that's not morally acceptable.

To answer your question I don't think everyone will use the same logic process as I do because they don't use it now. Everyone has a unique perspective. I currently work in a very diverse enviroment both racially and culturally. One young couple who works for us (Nancy and Oscar) are originally from Mexico, and we've had a number of discussions on subjects like overpopulation.

Nancy's point of view was very interesting. She just turned 18 and is 4 months pregnant with her first child. In her culture, she tells me, its expected of her to marry and start a family in her late teens. By the time she is twenty five she told me she wants to have four children. In her own words that's just the way that things are in her world. All of her friends and family believe similarly and her younger sister has already had her first child.

Contrast that to how I grew up. Most parents had children in their mid to late 20s and some had them in their 30s. Very few of them had more than two children and most only had one. Different cultures teach different things, and my point of view isn't representative of any more than fraction of society.

So if the age treatments DID exist I doubt they would in any way effect population growth (especially in 3rd world countries). Worse, if people lived longer they are likely to have MORE children not less. Remember that many children are unplanned...

hyzmarca View Member Profile	Apr 12 2006, 10:31 PM Post #54
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456	There is always mandatory reversable sterilization with every life extending treatment and the legal necessity to petition the government before one is allowed to concieve a child.

Platinum View Member Profile	Apr 13 2006, 12:35 AM Post #55
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,095 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Ontari-airee-o Member No.: 1,115	You are only talking about sterilizing after a life extending treatment, should be when you reach puberty.

nezumi

Apr 13 2006, 02:16 PM

Post #56

Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,548
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760

QUOTE (Arkelias)

Nancy's point of view was very interesting. She just turned 18 and is 4 months pregnant with her first child. In her culture, she tells me, its expected of her to marry and start a family in her late teens. By the time she is twenty five she told me she wants to have four children. In her own words that's just the way that things are in her world. All of her friends and family believe similarly and her younger sister has already had her first child.

Contrast that to how I grew up. Most parents had children in their mid to late 20s and some had them in their 30s. Very few of them had more than two children and most only had one. Different cultures teach different things, and my point of view isn't representative of any more than fraction of society.

The truly ironic part is that American culture will, through cultural imperialism, convert most other cultures of the world to follow it, then due to its terrible birth rate, will largely disappear in favor of immigrant cultures who are reproducing.

As a general rule, cultures which embrace population control do not survive because they shrink relative to cultures which continue to grow at tremendous rates. Hence, while I support population control, I do not support *MY* population control.

El_Machinae View Member Profile	Apr 13 2006, 03:13 PM Post #57
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188	It took a century for North America to abandon the "7 kids per household" ideal, because those family values were from when some kids didn't make it, and where wealth was related to your family size. That's no longer true here. Other nations will realise that too, as they progress and as they get crowded. As nations advance, they're likely to start controlling their population. Especially in an ageless society, where you're creating an economic burder by having children. I do think that people with think more 'long-term' when they can expect to live a long time. Maybe not while in their teens, but likely in their adult years.

nezumi View Member Profile	Apr 13 2006, 04:11 PM Post #58
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760	You don't really create an economic burden for having too many kids for the most part. You create an economic burden by your neighbor having too many kids. If you have too many kids you can generally live off them when prices begin to skyrocket. A large family is more likely to survive because they have more resources to draw on when they pool what they have available.

El_Machinae View Member Profile	Apr 13 2006, 04:24 PM Post #59
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188	You really think that? In the world I live in, taking a couple years out of your career can set you back. And providing shelter to a family is a lot more expensive than just you and your significant other. I see it all the time - people are choosing to not have children or to delay having children. And for most of the people who delay, it's because of the biological clock There's a reason we are not reproducing at replacement rates in the first world. We want to extend the 'good' parts of that reason to other nations to make the planet sustainable.

nezumi View Member Profile	Apr 13 2006, 05:23 PM Post #60
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760	Children are an investment. Taking a few years to finish college also sets you back, but ultimately you make up for it. In our modern society we've generally gotten to the point that, because of the availability of resources, we do not feed off of our own children once we're too old to work, but rather the surplus from our own work. This is fairly unusual, really, and if there is a crunch for resources again, it is very possible such a thing will no longer function. And for those of us who are not middle class or above, it's most certainly true that you rely on your children for help. You really can't survive on social security alone.

El_Machinae View Member Profile	Apr 13 2006, 05:33 PM Post #61
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188	Your statement is very true. Now think about what would happen if you didn't need social security because you were fit to work. There's no need for your children to support you, if you're not old.

Platinum

Apr 13 2006, 08:24 PM

Post #62

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,095
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Ontari-airee-o
Member No.: 1,115

QUOTE (El_Machinae)

You really think that? In the world I live in, taking a couple years out of your career can set you back. And providing shelter to a family is a lot more expensive than just you and your significant other.

I see it all the time - people are choosing to not have children or to delay having children. And for most of the people who delay, it's because of the biological clock

There's a reason we are not reproducing at replacement rates in the first world. We want to extend the 'good' parts of that reason to other nations to make the planet sustainable.

Do you have kids? I do. Now I will not be as financially free as a couple that will never have kids, but the kids do not really cost too much, you adjust your lifestyle. people that have more money spend it. my wife and I had our kids young, and some of my friends are just having theirs now. They still have tonnes of bills, and I will pay off my house at the same time in my life that they will, except my kids will be older ... right after I pay it off, they will be going to university. BUT, once the kids are done, I will have more money in my pocket AND I get 10 more years to get to know my kids than they did. Which means 10 more years with my grandkids. (maybe 20 if they have kinds in their lower 20's instead of 30's or 40's. (I will be a spry grandpa with lots of money, time and energy. We are not reproducing at sustaining rates because we are short sighted and selfish, we do not want to have responsiblity. Sure you can take some expensive trips with no kids, but you just make different memories when you have them. So do what you can now, because when you are old and infirm, you will be pining for your non-existant children to visit you.

nezumi View Member Profile	Apr 13 2006, 09:26 PM Post #63
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760	Damn non-existant kids. Would it kill them to pick up the phone now and again?

PBTHHHHT View Member Profile	Apr 13 2006, 09:28 PM Post #64
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,174 Joined: 13-May 04 From: UCAS Member No.: 6,327	and they never visit for the holidays. sobs

James McMurray View Member Profile	Apr 13 2006, 10:15 PM Post #65
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957	I plan on having lots of non-existant kids vsiitng me when I'm old and feeble. If I'm gonna have to be senile, I'm at least going to use it to my advantage to live the life I want, even if it ain't real. :)

Cray74

Apr 14 2006, 11:52 AM

Post #66

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,428
Joined: 9-June 02
Member No.: 2,860

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

The assertion that there is an infinite ammount of resources in the universe is incorrect.
While the volume of the universe is infinite (increases without bounds) that is just a bunch of empty space that makes it more difficult to get to new resources over time.

However, in effect, resources are infinite for Shadowrun's current level of population and industry.

It takes a relatively small nickel-iron asteroid (4-5km diameter) to supply more industrial metals than humanity has used throughout its history, or to supply current levels of industry for centuries.

Since there are a lot of asteroids in the Solar System, metal-rich Mercury, and other huge resources that don't have many occupants, you could say mankind's (almost) available resources are effectively infinite.

El_Machinae View Member Profile	Apr 15 2006, 02:39 PM Post #67
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188	This is also true for us, we're just not tapping them yet. Eventually the cost of mining an asteroid will drop enough that it will be worth it to mine an asteroid. And once we get there, we're golden. If we proactively take steps that speed this type of development, it's more likely that we'll personally benefit from that development. I get the impression that in Shadowrun, space is very much left alone.

Platinum

Apr 15 2006, 03:47 PM

Post #68

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,095
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Ontari-airee-o
Member No.: 1,115

QUOTE (Cray74)

QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Apr 7 2006, 05:40 PM)

The assertion that there is an infinite ammount of resources in the universe is incorrect.
While the volume of the universe is infinite (increases without bounds) that is just a bunch of empty space that makes it more difficult to get to new resources over time.

However, in effect, resources are infinite for Shadowrun's current level of population and industry.

It takes a relatively small nickel-iron asteroid (4-5km diameter) to supply more industrial metals than humanity has used throughout its history, or to supply current levels of industry for centuries.

Since there are a lot of asteroids in the Solar System, metal-rich Mercury, and other huge resources that don't have many occupants, you could say mankind's (almost) available resources are effectively infinite.

1 asteroid might fill our needs for a long long time, but tapping those resources is another thing. You are not just going to land an asteroid that size. The impact from when it hits the earth will decimate a huge area. You cannot mine it in space. Getting the mining equipment to it would be cost the US deficit to instantly quadruple. The costs are just too prohibative. We need to look at better recycling/reclaiming/ reduction strategies before we look at landing an asteroid.

Herald of Verjig...

Apr 15 2006, 04:04 PM

Post #69

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 3,066
Joined: 5-February 03
Member No.: 4,017

QUOTE (Platinum @ Apr 15 2006, 10:47 AM)

The impact from when it hits the earth will decimate a huge area.

That's what those in power will see not as a drawback, but as an added feature of the plan.

[press conference]"'Unfortunately,' due to a 'conversion error,' Paris will not survive the delivery of this masive store of resources."[/press conference]

El_Machinae

Apr 15 2006, 05:18 PM

Post #70

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 305
Joined: 2-March 03
Member No.: 4,188

QUOTE

You cannot mine it in space. Getting the mining equipment to it would be cost the US deficit to instantly quadruple. The costs are just too prohibative. We need to look at better recycling/reclaiming/ reduction strategies before we look at landing an asteroid.

Mining it in space still makes sense. Remember that private industry will likely be able to mine it efficiently, once it is available. As well, any progress on the Space Elevator will change all the formulas.

I think that we can get a LOT more use out of the 3R's, and we'll get even more if people take active steps in that area. But eventually we'll want new resources.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »