The Future and Its Sustainability

Tani Coyote

Son of Huehuecoyotl
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
15,191
A hypothetical for you all.

At some point in the future, scientists have perfected nanotechnology and stem cell research. Together, these render the three causes of death - aging, illness, and injury - virtually a non-issue. Translation: Humans are, barring rapid, exceptional circumstances, immortal. Death will be a thing of the past.

Scientists, however, have one concern: sustainability. Things will still need to be consumed to support this eternal life. Even if we've escaped our personal demise, we cannot escape that of all other life forms. In addition, if the population continues to grow, the planet will lay itself to waste as there's only so much available for everyone.

Therefore, the governments of the world have issued referenda to their citizenry. Space colonisation is still a ways off, even space harvesting is. As such, they are giving two options to their citizens: limit themselves to no children, or cut back their consumption of resources and live simpler lives. Whether implemented collectively or on an individual scale, the governments hold these to be the key to keeping the new, death-free world, sustainable for humans.

As a citizen of this world, how do you vote?

----

I cast my vote for less kids. We can keep the current quality of life per individual, but as a whole, consumption of resources must be limited. As such, births must be curtailed. The number of births must be regulated, with possible licenses given to have kids, allotted on a first come, first served basis. Since we're all immortal, methinks that patience will not be an issue.

What to do with illegal children, however...

I fear we could possibly cross into forced euthanasia, however, as punishment for having illegal kids.
 
None of the solutions would work. At least not by themselves.

Even if no new children were to come about, the human population would still number in several billions, and we're already running out of resources. Stopping death will only accelerate this process. The only seemingly sustainable goal for us is to expand into space. And while the Universe may also be finite, it's way bigger than the Earth...

One thing that eliminating death will do however, is to halt "progress" - whatever progress is. If parents and grandparents never die, they will always be around and keeping their opinions with them. As an example: How do you think anti-discrimination laws would have fared if people born in the 15th century were still around?

Death is a natural part of life. And a very vital one at that: Parents must die so their offspring can live. And old humans must die so that new humans can shape the world in their image.
 
If they have really perfected nanotechnology, they can simply render everyone sterile as part of becoming immortal. When replacements are needed, the process can be temporarily reversed for a few individuals.
 
If they have really perfected nanotechnology, they can simply render everyone sterile as part of becoming immortal. When replacements are needed, the process can be temporarily reversed for a few individuals.

Would it be possible to render people sterile without destroying their sex drive?

A very interesting idea yes - you're like the immortals of fiction in that you cannot have children once you become immortal.
 
Vasectomies.
 
We will find a way to make it sustainable, were humans, we survived the Ice age we should survive this
 
I vote for fewer children.

To wander from the OP a bit, we actually don't need to 'stop having kids'. If every person were allotted permission to have one child, the population would only double. (Assuming sexual reproduction)

Now, this hypothetical world wouldn't likely occur until about 2050. By then, the world's population would be about 9 billion. I'm not going to do the math at the number of people who've already had 'one kid' by that point, but even if people were only allowed 'one more kid', the population would only go to 18 billion.

That's too high, obviously, but an amazing number of people will have already reproduced by then.

And I'm a big fan of creating a world where the only death is voluntary.
 
To wander from the OP a bit, we actually don't need to 'stop having kids'. If every person were allotted permission to have one child, the population would only double. (Assuming sexual reproduction).
The population would freeze, surely? People would still, die, after all.

Anyway, assuming that a stark choice is necessary, I say go with less kids. It's better to have less, happier people than more, unhappier people (making the incredibly crude but assumption that, all else being equal, quality of life is dependent on resource consumption).
 
Just talking about this today at school!

Well we need to find renewable resources and energies first of all, slow population growth..etc..
 
I'd also support the 'less kids' option. I don't find anything unfair about denying new lives from being born (they won't ever know they didn't exist) but I do worry about stagnation. Not just socially, but technologically too. Sure, our geniuses won't die out, but each new generation sees the world in a different way and brings forth new ideas and innovation.

Also, as a side note, what hypothetical levels of resources consumption are we talking here? Also, in what ways are they distributed?
 
I have done a bit of reading on Population and it is really a non-issue ... people are already cutting the number of children they have by themselves as they become healthier and more affluent. I suspect within a century the earth's population will stabilize.

A video for you to watch

Link to video.
 
So they've unlocked immortality and nanotechnology, and yet they can't mine a damn rock in space.

I vote for population control via exterminating the dunderheads who abetted this farcical future.
 
I have done a bit of reading on Population and it is really a non-issue ... people are already cutting the number of children they have by themselves as they become healthier and more affluent. I suspect within a century the earth's population will stabilize.

A video for you to watch

Link to video.
The data Rosling provides IS really very nice. It makes me happy every time I see it.

HOWEVER, the future stable human population of 9 billion individuals will all want to consume at least as much resources as each individual in the U.S. is consuming currently!

So our huge population is not a non-issue. It is a extremely huge issue, and since we're all not interested in dealing with it, it's going to become a hell of a problem!
 
I was unclear. What I mean is that, if immortality was discovered, the population would only double (from today) if everyone were allowed to have one child. It would approach 2x what it is today.
Ah, no, my mistake- I forgot the "immortality" thing in the OP! :crazyeye:
 
What happens when those children want kids?
 
No to the Chinese-like authoritarian population control. No to forceful sterilization. Miniature flags for ALL!!
 
Top Bottom