It is unlikely that a scientist on the verge of perpetuating cell
division will stop at his lab and say
'Hey, hey, hey. Wait a minute,
here. If I could provide 200 year lifespans we might get crowded. I think
I'll just deposit this culture of telomerase in the trash. Poohey on the
$10,000,000,000 windfall that will come to this laboratory.'
On Tue, 14 Feb 1995, Philip Rhoades wrote:
> Joseph J. Strout (strout at helmholtz) wrote:
> : On Sun, 12 Feb 1995, Patrick O'Neil wrote:
>> : > Conversely, I have considered the wideer ramifications of such
> : > manipulations and capabilities and have come to the conclusion that
> : > significant life extension in general would be disastrous. The worl
> : > population is already booming and there is concern about the environment
> : > and available resources for the ever-growing minions.
> : > ...
> : > Unless there is another planet sitting around for us to expand onto, or
> : > unless everyone will accept strict population control methods, then it
> : > cannot work. The problems are the same, to varying lessor extents if you
> : > are only considering minor life extensions.
>> : I think your analysis is essentially correct. Humanity's gestation is
> : nearly over; the difficulty is making sure that Mother Earth does not die
> : due to complications of childbirth.
>> : The only long-term solution, of course, is to expand from Earth. As you
> : pointed out, long lives would be benificial given ample room and
> : resources. Fortunately, there are resources aplenty in our home solar
> : system. The gas giants, especially, are rich in energy and raw
> : materials.
>> This is a nice idea but apparently just science fiction (unless some new
> technology is developed to get large numbers of people off the planet
> cheaply - in terms of energy).
>> : Of course, the original question was about life extension
> : through biological means, and it is doubtful that such methods will
> : enable people to live on other worlds except in enclosed structures, and
> : this will limit the rate of expansion.
>> : Of course, it would take an extremely aggressive emmigration program to
> : counter the growth rate; births will have to be legally restricted, most
> : likely, as they are in China already. The combination of emmigration and
> : birth restriction may succeed in saving Earth -- despite an extended
> : lifespan.
>> Like I said above - it just ain't possible - parts of a solution are:
> drastic population reduction (over a couple of centuries), drastic cuts in
> the consumption of scarce resources, fanatical conservation of species
> diversity and huge increases in recycling.
>> Ideally, I think a world population of ~1 billion is a good idea - with
> disease, poverty and war elliminated - at least that's what we should be
> aiming for - BEFORE we worry about going to other planets and stars.
> Shifting a few people off earth cannot solve the problems. (BTW I am a SF
> fan and I would be on the next shuttle if given half a chance - it's just
> that hi-tech space solutions to the world's problems are a fantasy).
>> [Lecture mode off]
>> Phil.
>> --
> Philip Rhoades
> Pricom Pty Limited
> E-mail: okx at extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> Phone : +61 2 963-2246
> Fax : +61 2 569-5329
> S-mail: GPO Box 3411 Sydney NSW 2001 Australia
>>
