Is lncreasing human longevity a good idea?

[samsara15]

Can the Earth support us? Can we afford to live that much longer, unless we are very rich?

My opinion on the first part of your question: The earth can definitely support us until after I die, so I don't really care that much.

And the second part... I never though about it, but I have no problem with dying at 80.

[bishop]

yes... but we may need to change our diet and get serious about hydroponics.

[Leopard]

Originally posted by samsara15, Can the Earth support us? Can we afford to live that much longer, unless we are very rich?

Yes, the earth can support many times our current population - industry and business and perhaps standards of livings would not be the same as today, but there is plenty of room and resources for 10 times the population - the only thing that we lack is a societal/government structure which allows humans to exist without basic rights being trampled upon...

michael

[Autophage]

I want to die in a fantastically interesting way, preferably getting on the front page of many newspapers and a picture on rotten.com. As for the morality of increasing longevity, I'd say it would be fine if more people warmed up to the 'kill the weak' theory to even it out, but nobody wants that.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Leopard, Yes, the earth can support many times our current population - industry and business and perhaps standards of livings would not be the same as today, but there is plenty of room and resources for 10 times the population - the only thing that we lack is a societal/government structure which allows humans to exist without basic rights being trampled upon... michael

At the expense of most of the wildlife?
Sure we can support 60 billion humans, but imagine the heat we'd generate with our machines, we'd definitely get some global warming going...

[Leopard]

Originally posted by Pooeypants,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Leopard, Yes, the earth can support many times our current population - industry and business and perhaps standards of livings would not be the same as today, but there is plenty of room and resources for 10 times the population - the only thing that we lack is a societal/government structure which allows humans to exist without basic rights being trampled upon... michael

At the expense of most of the wildlife?
Sure we can support 60 billion humans, but imagine the heat we'd generate with our machines, we'd definitely get some global warming going...[/b][/quote]

pooey,
you assume that all decisions are predetermined and that we will not continue to make new decisions as the world changes around us. Do not simply imagine the world as it exists today being the same one which would just include an additional 60 billion humans - obviously it will not be so.

As the population increases and whatever effects are starting to be felt (increased heat, less wildlife, more polluted air, food shortages, etc) then prices will reflect these changes. People will adjust their consumption to take into account these new prices and thus industry will change according to how people desire. For instance, if deer were to become much more endangered and peoples valuation of having/seeing deer around and participating in the environment then the prices for such would increase until the point where the market would reflect this by generating large 'deer' reserves and private enviromentally 'untouched' tracts of land for folks to experience and enjoy nature.

Once the costs of housing and fuel and all other manner of things became great enough, then humans would have the incentive as a whole to push out into the solar system because the price/benefit ratio would equalize between living on earth and 'out there'. This is the marvel of the pricing system and the interaction of folks when participating in uncoerced trade - we take into account all the things which are important to us and this is reflected in the market.

michael

[5010]

Originally posted by samsara15,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (samsara15,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Can the Earth support us?[/b]

Yes, but only where society ultimately practices contraception.

<!--QuoteBegin-samsara15,
Can we afford to live that much longer, unless we are very rich?
[/quote]

The longer you live, the more you can benefit from compound interest. Also it takes less recources to support yourself once your offspring are out on their own.

As long as longevity also means retained function, you should be able to earn a living. Hopefully it would also mean periodic renewal of appearance. Wouldn't be pretty if you kept aging hundreds of years and your ears and nose never stopped growing!

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Leopard, pooey, you assume that all decisions are predetermined and that we will not continue to make new decisions as the world changes around us. Do not simply imagine the world as it exists today being the same one which would just include an additional 60 billion humans - obviously it will not be so. As the population increases and whatever effects are starting to be felt (increased heat, less wildlife, more polluted air, food shortages, etc) then prices will reflect these changes. People will adjust their consumption to take into account these new prices and thus industry will change according to how people desire. For instance, if deer were to become much more endangered and peoples valuation of having/seeing deer around and participating in the environment then the prices for such would increase until the point where the market would reflect this by generating large 'deer' reserves and private enviromentally 'untouched' tracts of land for folks to experience and enjoy nature. Once the costs of housing and fuel and all other manner of things became great enough, then humans would have the incentive as a whole to push out into the solar system because the price/benefit ratio would equalize between living on earth and 'out there'. This is the marvel of the pricing system and the interaction of folks when participating in uncoerced trade - we take into account all the things which are important to us and this is reflected in the market. michael

And thus people will be leaving the Earth and living off world on colonies, doesn't mean we can maintain 60 billion lives on Earth though.

[Lava]

> Is lncreasing human longevity a good idea?

yes. It gives each of us more opportunities in life, more time to grow in awareness and wisdom, and learn how to enjoy life best, and more time to enjoy what life has to offer.

Can the earth support more people? We have way more resources than we need, so yes in principle, though how that would pan out politically can only be an unknown at present.

One interesting thing would change if we lived to 400: the pace of change of technology. It would increase dramatically. It usually takes decades for people to reach the point where they know enough to come up with new technology good enough to change what is generally done: imagine how much one inventor could achieve in 400 years, as their knowledge keeps on growing, far beyond the usual time limits of today. We would see a much cleverer world, and more efficiency equals ability to support more people. So I would not be surprised if we could support a population growing to 60 billion.

But... there is always room for things to wrong along the way.


Regards, Lava!

[prettyredhead]

[Yes, the earth can support many times our current population - industry and business and perhaps standards of livings would not be the same as today, but there is plenty of room and resources for 10 times the population - the only thing that we lack is a societal/government structure which allows humans to exist without basic rights being trampled upon...

michael[/quote]

Yes, the basic rights include dictating whom should eat, whom should not. How much of their wages can be taxed or not. Under this theory, no one would have any social services, or mental health free clinics, or WIC that provides babies and familys with nutrition.
If you dont like/cant live within our govt. then move to a country that has no guidance or rules, or government. U are entitled to your opinion, however and it isnt all that radical. But if you cut social services, you had better cut off funding for prisons, and roads and elderly needs.

[Leopard]

Originally posted by prettyredhead, Yes, the earth can support many times our current population - industry and business and perhaps standards of livings would not be the same as today, but there is plenty of room and resources for 10 times the population - the only thing that we lack is a societal/government structure which allows humans to exist without basic rights being trampled upon... michael Yes, the basic rights include dictating whom should eat, whom should not. How much of their wages can be taxed or not. Under this theory, no one would have any social services, or mental health free clinics, or WIC that provides babies and familys with nutrition. If you dont like/cant live within our govt. then move to a country that has no guidance or rules, or government. U are entitled to your opinion, however and it isnt all that radical. But if you cut social services, you had better cut off funding for prisons, and roads and elderly needs.

no, basic rights are NOT a guarantee of food or shelter or anything else impose on another.

why don't you move to another country? I am just advocating the government stay within the confines of the constitution.

I don't care how 'radical' or not my opinion is - I care about if it is: moral, ethical, and the best way for humans to socially interact... from all I know of economics and morals, I say it is.

But if you cut social services, you had better cut off funding for prisons, and roads and elderly needs.
OK DEAL! lets do it!!!!!

michael

[Phil Free]

So many of the responses I would like to comment on, but I will not cut and paste - too much work.

I LOVE the pie in the sky belief that we can do whatever we want today, because technology of the future (yet to be found) will save us. This always brings me so much joy. In laughter, that is. Who's to say we can say we will EVER have such technology? So why risk it? The answer is simple - the excuse that future generations will figure something out is an excuse to be lazy, careless, and extravagant now.

Understand that scientists get paid to come up with new ideas and inventions, whether they are beneficial or not beneficial at all. The a-bomb was a wonderful invention, no?

Another funny one: that a benevolent government will make things better. Benevolent as in our government? Benevolent as in a "Communist" one? All governments have ever amounted to are ways to centralize power and wealth, and to turn the poor into cannon fodder and servants. Or a platform for repressive, religious zealots to work on. Etc. etc.

If people are good, governments are unnecessary, if people are bad, governments are useless. We have to start managing ourselves, and setting good examples, and stop relying on governments that have only proven to be the average person's oppressor for nearly all of history.

This one's great: the cost of deer, in a near-deerless world, would skyrocket, naturally solving the problem. Yeah, like there haven't been ANY animals brought to extinction under Capitalism's self-destructive reign of terror? Ever heard of the dodo, the tasmanian tiger, and the passenger pigeon, to list a few?

Increasing our lifespan is simply unnecessary human egoising. There is not enough solid reasons to continue this trend of monsterising humanity - the drug companies, the medias, and scientists are just getting paid to keep us wanting more and more, at the cost of the environment and our sanity.

"A capitalist would sell rope to his own hangman." - Lenin

I'm no fan of Lenin, but ain't that right on the money????

[Leopard]

This one's great: the cost of deer, in a near-deerless world, would skyrocket, naturally solving the problem. Yeah, like there haven't been ANY animals brought to extinction under Capitalism's self-destructive reign of terror? Ever heard of the dodo, the tasmanian tiger, and the passenger pigeon, to list a few?

you make the assumption that those species which have become extinct (whether or not due to human influence) are 'valuable'. The cost of a 'deer' would not necessarily skyrocket if they were not considered valuable, and so 'could' become extinct. My guess is that those who desire to hunt such animals do value them (probably more so than 'environmentalists' or animal rights groups) and where therefore work to preserve this 'valuable' to them, resource.

Increasing our lifespan is simply unnecessary human egoising.

Your opinion. Fine. But I think there are plently of historical evidence to point out that most folks do desire to live longer and will continue to pursue this goal, whether or not it is 'egoising' is rather moot.

michael

[Phil Free]

Originally posted by Leopard,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leopard,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>you make the assumption that those species which have become extinct (whether or not due to human influence) are 'valuable'. The cost of a 'deer' would not necessarily skyrocket if they were not considered valuable, and so 'could' become extinct. My guess is that those who desire to hunt such animals do value them (probably more so than 'environmentalists' or animal rights groups) and where therefore work to preserve this 'valuable' to them, resource.[/b]

Pardon me? Those animals that became extinct became so by hunters. The dodo was hunted for food, by the way - sure they were valued. Your whole "hunting is for those who care about animals" is a crock. I've heard it by so many red-necky hunters I was assuming only the ignorant used it. Sadly, apparently not.

<!--QuoteBegin-Leopard,
Your opinion. Fine. But I think there are plently of historical evidence to point out that most folks do desire to live longer and will continue to pursue this goal, whether or not it is 'egoising' is rather moot.[/quote]

And there is plenty of historical evidence to prove that our trends are only leading us into a serious environmental catastrophe. If humans want to live longer, that's fine, but what's the point in living long only to find there is nothing worth living for - or nothing left to support you.

It's not just a matter of simple human egoising - it's a matter of intelligence. If we live longer that doesn't solve any problems, but creates more. And when we have populated this world to the breaking point (as far as resources go) then all that living longer was for nothing. We're dead.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by Phil Free, "A capitalist would sell rope to his own hangman."[/i] - Lenin I'm no fan of Lenin, but ain't that right on the money????

I am not either, but boy... did he nail it or not with this one?....

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Leopard, you make the assumption that those species which have become extinct (whether or not due to human influence) are 'valuable'. The cost of a 'deer' would not necessarily skyrocket if they were not considered valuable, and so 'could' become extinct. My guess is that those who desire to hunt such animals do value them (probably more so than 'environmentalists' or animal rights groups) and where therefore work to preserve this 'valuable' to them, resource.

You know how Fisherman depend on the marine life for a living? That means the stock is very valuble to them, more than to us perhaps, as you claim. Then why is it that now we've got seas and oceans depleted of the fish stock that are so important to these fishermen? Where's the preservation there?

[Samildanach]

I have the solution to the overpopulation problem.

Cannibalism. It also solves the problem of the homeless not being able to eat properly as well. I know if I was a homeless person without anything to eat I'd be killing people left right and centre, it helps the world out and it helps me out. Why go fishing in a polluted river when you have healthy fat animals all around you.

But seriously I do believe the world is capable of supporting 10 times our current population however we would have to be a much more disciplined society in terms of waste and consumption. Underwater habitats would have to become viable, a large scale move to energy sources that use heat eg solar energy rather than generate heat eg coal powered plants etc. Its possible but I for one don't have great faith that the human race is capable of dicipline on that kind of scale. :(

[Nexiss]

Personally, I plan on living for a very long time...

A) There seems to be the assumption that the human population would just keep on growing. This hypothetical society in which people are living for long periods of time would be technically advanced (though, we are really almost there). What do we see in the first world nations of our world? Declining birth rates (and infertility would seem to be on the rise). People are having less children, and in fact some are predicting population crunches (in Japan for example).
B) Sooner or later we will start moving people out into space, this advanced society presumably being closer to that than our own.

[Leopard]

Originally posted by Pooeypants,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Leopard, you make the assumption that those species which have become extinct (whether or not due to human influence) are 'valuable'.  The cost of a 'deer' would not necessarily skyrocket if they were not considered valuable, and so 'could' become extinct.  My guess is that those who desire to hunt such animals do value them (probably more so than 'environmentalists' or animal rights groups) and where therefore work to preserve this 'valuable' to them, resource.

You know how Fisherman depend on the marine life for a living? That means the stock is very valuble to them, more than to us perhaps, as you claim. Then why is it that now we've got seas and oceans depleted of the fish stock that are so important to these fishermen? Where's the preservation there?[/b][/quote]

Pooey, the problem you point to is actually with 'ownership' - no one owns the fish or oceans and thus we get the 'tragedy of the commons' - a common problem which faces each and every so-called 'public' property...

Take ANY private lake and you will find it stocked and fishing restricted to maintain population...

michael