IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Attitudes to life extension via genetic engineering

John de Rivaz John at longevb.demon.co.uk
Sat Feb 18 01:53:53 EST 1995

In article: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950216084602.6365B-100000 at corona>  Patrick O'Neil 
<patrick at corona> writes:
> It could certainly help but think of what this would mean in terms of you 
> as a parent.  You would be taking care of your children for however long 
> it took for them to mature.  Instead of 18 to 22 years of rearing per 
> child, you could end up with 20 to 30 years of parenting per child.  Of 
> course, such a daunting reality might itself lead to a lower birthrate as 
> people who couldn't handle the extra time opted out of having kids.

Why would you need to maintain children who may be sexually immature but 
mentally quite capable of taking place in society?

One might as well argue that monks and nuns have to be maintained by their 

Our society puts anyone who is not paired off as a second class citizen.

This is by the by ... I don't think delayed puberty is necessarily any more 
preferable to putting contraceptive devices into a baby at birth and 
requiring a government license to remove them.

The answer to population growth is to make people affluent and so interested 
in life generally that they don't see the need to produce lost of children 
or have the time for it. This method is the only one really known to work.

Sincerely,     ****************************************       
               * Publisher of        Longevity Report *
John de Rivaz  *                     Fractal Report   *
               *          details on request          *
**** What is the point of life if it ends in death? ****

More information about the Ageing mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net