Any population argument that stretches centuries in the future needs to contend with whether humans will attain clinical, biological, or some other form of immortality or amortality in that time. If we increase the lifespan to 300 or 1000 or 10000 years of healthy life, that both forestalls population decline and enables those who do want children to have more of them over the course of their lives.
True, but both the size of the impact and the probability of us having that capability increase with time, and I’d rather not get into a discussion of the timeline for attaining immortality, so I hedged my claim a bit.
Any population argument that stretches centuries in the future needs to contend with whether humans will attain clinical, biological, or some other form of immortality or amortality in that time. If we increase the lifespan to 300 or 1000 or 10000 years of healthy life, that both forestalls population decline and enables those who do want children to have more of them over the course of their lives.
Arguments that stretch significantly less far into the future still need to contend with that.
True, but both the size of the impact and the probability of us having that capability increase with time, and I’d rather not get into a discussion of the timeline for attaining immortality, so I hedged my claim a bit.
Fair enough.