(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Currently I am reading Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson.

Among other things, this book has me contemplating the ethics of longevity treatment. At this point, the prospect of a gene-based therapy to stave off the effects of aging appears to be more of a matter of when as opposed to if. The implications of this are far-ranging and deserve attention.

[Poll #254699]

Comments

[alobar.livejournal.com]

I speak pragmatically. If the population keeps growing we are doomed. If people breed like flies & have much longer lives, we perish more quickly. If one is rewarded for not breeding by being given the opportunity for a longer life, that is incentive.

[cullent.livejournal.com]

Breeding like flies? That would be mostly brown people you know. White folks mostly only have 1 or 2, but they still use up a lot more of everything than anybody else.
Bigots often take refuge in pragmatism, but you're idea isn't even pragmatic. It's stupid. You'd reward a wealthy American couple, with one trophy baby. Sweet. But the reason they only had one is that they waited until they'd made plenty of money for their McMansion, their suv, their jetskis and snowmobiles, etc. They had expensive therapies just to pop this one out, and they'll make sure it takes up many times it's fair share of the Earth's resources. You'd let 'em live longer, and they'd take advantage by exploiting the Earth's resources (human and otherwise) that much longer. Meanwhile, all the poor folks will continue to fight for survival, and their babies will be exploited in their turn to feed the gluttonous appetites of your new and improved, longer living, mostly white, suburban, Americans. That's not pragmatic. It's bigoted and stupid.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

Don't give yourself a nosebleed here. Fomenting at me is not likely to change anything. And no, not just brown people breed like flies. While my parents had one kid & I had none, my mother's sister had 6 kids & even though 2 of them had 0 kids, she still was granny to 15 kids & I don't know how many great grand children by now.

But of course huge resource use is a problem. Ever hear of Peak oil? It sure looks like *everything* is gonna fall apart long before any life extension treatments are gonna extend anyone's life. I am nearly 59 & sure looks to me like I will wind up being kiled in rioting long before I die of old age. Cutting back on resources is a great idea. So is cutting back on population. But both are things which the human race should have done 50 years ago. I have done my very small part for both, but there were not billions of people doing similarly to me.

You speak of gluttonous appetites like you are outside of them. You own a car? You travel by air? You own a computer? I take a bus once a week to by food. Other than that I walk everywhere. Sure I consume far more than someone doing subsistance agriculture, but given the opportunity, there are few people consumming little would would not rather consume more.

Large families are useful if one is doing agricultural work by hand. Humans have not outgrown the genetic programming to spawn regularly. Lots of people make huge numbers of babies who are not engagesd in farming with manual labor. And yes, I fully agree that the ones who best get the lesson of limiting family growth are the very ones who consume the most resources, and exploit others who are poor.

If free life extension is given to everyone (which it won't be because those with the power are gonna hog it to themesleves) we must drastically cut back on population. But, as I said above, it is all just a fun exercise thinking about it. We are already grossly overcrowded, most of the topsoil is gone, and the oil is running out. Think of this thread as a game. I suggest you lighten up on the political correctness or you are gonna hurt yourself with your own righteous anger.

[cullent.livejournal.com]

No nosebleeds here. No political correctness either. I spoke my beliefs, and done myself no harm. Focusing on family size rather than resource usage is shallow and bigoted. No, brown people aren't the only ones to have large families, but they are far more likely to than white people. Same goes for poor folk. Large family size is useful not just for agricultural work, but for populations with little or no political power.

"You own a car?" No.
"You travel by air?" Never.
"You own a computer?" No.


I share a house in the city with another paying housemate, and with itinerants. I buy used or do without as much as possible. I share what I have with others, I help folks in my community, and I work hard. Yes, I think I'm at least realtively free of gluttony.