Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FranticAudi t1_j9i1mgw wrote

Do this with dogs and cats and make billions, and then humans, make more billions.

86

DeepSpaceWarlock t1_j9ioyju wrote

The last episode of Torchwood was essentially this. TL;DR World leaders basically ended up killing citizens en masse who would’ve died to keep the world stable from a hypermalthusian event

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torchwood:_Miracle_Day?wprov=sfti1

11

sunobu t1_j9j843h wrote

You may have confused Too Long ; Didn't Read with Spoiler Alert.

10

ItsAConspiracy t1_j9ji5xy wrote

In the real world, birth rates are plummeting as populations urbanize. Most countries are facing demographic crashes over the next couple decades, and very low birth rates after that. Anti-aging could save economies and retirement systems.

7

Littleman88 t1_j9jvcwh wrote

I think there might be a rebound effect with longer living individuals. Especially if we can mix in restoring fertility on top of anti-aging. For a lot of people, not having kids is a mix of never finding someone to have kids with as well as establishing for themselves a stable future to raise any, which isn't happening within 20-30 years anymore.

6

ItsAConspiracy t1_j9k1oww wrote

Eventually, population will start rising again if the anti-aging tech is good enough. But in that eventual higher-tech future we might also have cheap fusion, cheap space travel, and really compact food synthesis, so we'll be able to support much larger populations. We're making progress towards all of these things.

5

ExtremeDot58 t1_j9i3i70 wrote

Population explosion

5

dalumbr t1_j9i4yul wrote

Given the oncoming working demographic collapse, options will need to be weighed.

30

QualifiedApathetic t1_j9i6hxi wrote

I don't see how it possibly works without severe population controls. Frankly, there's about as many humans on the planet as there ought to be, probably more.

That said, Americans will probably get first look considering the bulk of the work is being done and funded here. And the US has a VERY low population density compared to other countries -- a measly 35 people per square kilometer. Russia, Canada, and Australia with 8, 4, and 3 people per square kilometer, respectively, but they all have much more uninhabitable wasteland.

The US could support a much larger population even without taking advancements in food science into account, but with no one dying of old age, it wouldn't take too long before we reached the danger zone. We'd still need restrictions on population. Personally, I'm hoping that Christians, being a literal death cult, will decide that life-extending treatments are the devil's work and anyone who gets them is going to Hell.

6

RobsEvilTwin t1_j9i7ked wrote

>Russia, Canada, and Australia with 8, 4, and 3 people per square kilometer, respectively, but they all have much more uninhabitable wasteland.

~98% of Australians live on ~10% of the land, which is why the average figure is so low.

Even so out cities are much less crowded than most places you could visit. I live in a capital city which is mostly trees outside the CBD.

4

QualifiedApathetic t1_j9icplf wrote

Americans are packed into cities too, though maybe not to the same degree. A lot of America is still just wilderness.

3

dalumbr t1_j9i90wn wrote

I think it depends rather highly on how the causes of death are impacted, and the nature of the extension.

If it's what I think it is, it's more or less stretching out the body's decay, rather than just adding a number of years in a specific physical state. So people that randomly die at any point after 50 are still going to, rather than living forever. That's an issue for a far, far improved version of this treatment, if it's ever possible.

Going by the 7% figure in the study, 7 years assuming a lifespan of 100 would figure into maybe 3 or 4 at an optimal age if applied early enough, and wouldn't really impact average society beyond a slight increase across the board. It's not exactly an immediate exponential increase, though it could snowball into one.

Then again, with the average age of parents steadily rising, it might not seriously impact birthrate at all.

2

QualifiedApathetic t1_j9icbh2 wrote

Well...what I really want is to get my 20s back. A do-over. Extra years would be nice, but I don't love the idea of finding a way to only slow the aging process just to watch my body deteriorate more gradually than I expected (it's already a fair ways into the process). So if it's just that, I'm only mildly interested.

It's a different study, but you might have heard about one where they basically made mice young again. You're right, a big question mark, whatever they come up with, is how we die instead. We'll have to see what role cancer and accidents play. Although, we're working on curing cancer, and automobiles, for example, are way safer than when I was born. There are car models whose rate of death is statistically zero. It's so much safer to get in an accident than it used to be.

And, as I said, we'll have to see who actually opts for treatments. Fingers crossed that right-wing Christians would rather die, but they come up with those beliefs post hoc. They certainly get chemotherapy for their cancer to delay going to heaven.gif

3

Mad_Aeric t1_j9j1j0a wrote

Rats too. Anyone who's had pet rats will tell you that the worst part is how short lived they are.

3

noobductive t1_j9j4qbd wrote

Feels kinda unethical to give your companion animals unnaturally longer lifespan/ a form of immortality. They can’t really agree to it. People do it for themselves more than anything. There’s a point in life where you have to accept it’s time to let go of your loved ones, instead of forcing it.

−1