This is a big complex issue, which in my opinion mostly boils down to the fact that the hypothesis that immortality will cause overpopulation shouldn’t be privileged over the hypothesis that it will lead to better population control. Some points to consider:
Wanting to have kids (to the extent of being willing to cause environmental catastrophe by so doing) is plausibly in part related to the unfulfilled desire to live longer. Reproduction allows one to have an impact on human society which is meaningful over long time scales. Indefinite life extension fulfills this need without increasing the number of individuals.
Having more than one surviving child per adult on average causes exponential growth problems even if immortality goes unsolved. The solution to this is birth control. The automated natural death cycle, aside from its inhumane aspects, is also arguably a fake solution that deludes people into thinking that contraception and conscious family planning is unnecessary.
Humans die of accidents and suicide every so often to begin with. Thus there will be new space made for a small number of families to have new children. It will simply not be a major part of the overall culture.
Space is big enough to mean there is a lot of time to solve the problem if we limit ourselves to natural biological reproduction. Biotech that allows gigantic family sizes with little cost to the parents (e.g. food factories and artificial wombs) is not the result of immortality but of general advancements in biotechnology.
An engineered lifecycle wherein an individual returns to childhood after a period of elderhood is a plausible substitute for the existing status quo of all children being newly created as blank slates. Children could thus exist, but with a rich set of memories and experiences to draw upon and integrate into their lives.
The desire to reproduce is largely a cultural artifact, as opposed to an innate drive. To the extent that it is an innate drive, it may be fulfilled by raising any kind of infant-like creature—including reborn adults, simulated children, and animals.
Sometimes it is acceptable to focus on near-term problems at the expense of the extremely long-term. All forms of life-saving human technology arguably contribute to human overpopulation, but given the severity of death it is a worthwhile expenditure. We would rather have a large population than have millions die of hunger or disease—why should aging be different?
Individuals moving to a silicon substrate would most likely not consume anywhere near the resources that natural humans do.
Individuals could also choose to move their brain and central nervous system to a low energy-cost nourishment tank, and use robotic bodies that cost far less energy than a natural human body.
Groups could plausibly merge into single individuals, by forming hive-minds, effectively reducing the total population.
It may be relevant that on reading some of your more science-fictiony proposed replacements, my thoughts were along the lines of “geez, I hope these take long enough to implement that I get to be a real mother before anyone expects me to find these facsimiles satisfactory”.
To be honest I feel the same way. But we’re talking about a fairly long period of cultural (not to mention biological) evolution before this becomes a problem, which is part of my point. The people of thousands of years in the future may well consider things that we today find almost too weird to contemplate, to be simply common sense.
Wanting to have kids (to the extent of being willing to cause environmental catastrophe by so doing) is plausibly in part related to the unfulfilled desire to live longer. Reproduction allows one to have an impact on human society which is meaningful over long time scales. Indefinite life extension fulfills this need without increasing the number of individuals.
Wanting to eat (to the extent of being willing to cause environmental catastrophe by doing so) is plausibly in part related to the unfulfilled desire to extract free energy from the surroundings in order to remain far from equilibrium with them. Eating high-energy, body-compatible nutrients allows one to effect such an extraction. Receiving nutrients via IV fulfills this need without environmental cost.
Therefore, apes on nutrient feeds no longer wish to eat. (???)
Receiving nutrients via IV fulfills this need without environmental cost.
I wonder how you imagine nutrients being produced without environmental cost? Of course, one would be distant from their production; but here in the West one is usually distant from the production of ordinary foodstuffs also. And I think your argument confuses adapting with executing adaptations.
Therefore, apes on nutrient feeds no longer wish to eat. (???)
The reasoning may be doubtful, but the conclusion is actually true. Anorexia is a recognised, if minor, side-effect of sustaining someone through an IV when they cannot eat. When they come off the IV, it can take a few days for the normal sensations of hunger and appetite to function properly again.
The desire to reproduce is largely a cultural artifact, as opposed to an innate drive. To the extent that it is an innate drive, it may be fulfilled by raising any kind of infant-like creature—including reborn adults, simulated children, and animals.
I find this highly implausible, from anything resembling an ev-psyc point of view. Note for example that even animals that don’t have culture have an innate drive to reproduce.
I find this highly implausible, from anything resembling an ev-psyc point of view. Note for example that even animals that don’t have culture have an innate drive to reproduce.
Smart animals generally have a drive to have sex, not a drive to reproduce. Evolution didn’t anticipate (because that blind idiot god never anticipates) that some species would be so so smart that they could easily fulfill the sex drive without reproducing. However, at this point, given the ease of birth control in much of the world, there should be direct selection pressure for wanting to reproduce, not just have sex.
As long as some people exist who tend to actually reproduce—whether or not they consciously want it—they will outbreed those who don’t reproduce and dominate the population.
Any solution proposing to change people (biologically, culturally, etc) so that they can reproduce but usually don’t, must make very sure there are absolutely no heritable exceptions.
This is a big complex issue, which in my opinion mostly boils down to the fact that the hypothesis that immortality will cause overpopulation shouldn’t be privileged over the hypothesis that it will lead to better population control. Some points to consider:
Wanting to have kids (to the extent of being willing to cause environmental catastrophe by so doing) is plausibly in part related to the unfulfilled desire to live longer. Reproduction allows one to have an impact on human society which is meaningful over long time scales. Indefinite life extension fulfills this need without increasing the number of individuals.
Having more than one surviving child per adult on average causes exponential growth problems even if immortality goes unsolved. The solution to this is birth control. The automated natural death cycle, aside from its inhumane aspects, is also arguably a fake solution that deludes people into thinking that contraception and conscious family planning is unnecessary.
Humans die of accidents and suicide every so often to begin with. Thus there will be new space made for a small number of families to have new children. It will simply not be a major part of the overall culture.
Space is big enough to mean there is a lot of time to solve the problem if we limit ourselves to natural biological reproduction. Biotech that allows gigantic family sizes with little cost to the parents (e.g. food factories and artificial wombs) is not the result of immortality but of general advancements in biotechnology.
An engineered lifecycle wherein an individual returns to childhood after a period of elderhood is a plausible substitute for the existing status quo of all children being newly created as blank slates. Children could thus exist, but with a rich set of memories and experiences to draw upon and integrate into their lives.
The desire to reproduce is largely a cultural artifact, as opposed to an innate drive. To the extent that it is an innate drive, it may be fulfilled by raising any kind of infant-like creature—including reborn adults, simulated children, and animals.
Sometimes it is acceptable to focus on near-term problems at the expense of the extremely long-term. All forms of life-saving human technology arguably contribute to human overpopulation, but given the severity of death it is a worthwhile expenditure. We would rather have a large population than have millions die of hunger or disease—why should aging be different?
Individuals moving to a silicon substrate would most likely not consume anywhere near the resources that natural humans do.
Individuals could also choose to move their brain and central nervous system to a low energy-cost nourishment tank, and use robotic bodies that cost far less energy than a natural human body.
Groups could plausibly merge into single individuals, by forming hive-minds, effectively reducing the total population.
It may be relevant that on reading some of your more science-fictiony proposed replacements, my thoughts were along the lines of “geez, I hope these take long enough to implement that I get to be a real mother before anyone expects me to find these facsimiles satisfactory”.
To be honest I feel the same way. But we’re talking about a fairly long period of cultural (not to mention biological) evolution before this becomes a problem, which is part of my point. The people of thousands of years in the future may well consider things that we today find almost too weird to contemplate, to be simply common sense.
Wanting to eat (to the extent of being willing to cause environmental catastrophe by doing so) is plausibly in part related to the unfulfilled desire to extract free energy from the surroundings in order to remain far from equilibrium with them. Eating high-energy, body-compatible nutrients allows one to effect such an extraction. Receiving nutrients via IV fulfills this need without environmental cost.
Therefore, apes on nutrient feeds no longer wish to eat. (???)
I wonder how you imagine nutrients being produced without environmental cost? Of course, one would be distant from their production; but here in the West one is usually distant from the production of ordinary foodstuffs also. And I think your argument confuses adapting with executing adaptations.
The reasoning may be doubtful, but the conclusion is actually true. Anorexia is a recognised, if minor, side-effect of sustaining someone through an IV when they cannot eat. When they come off the IV, it can take a few days for the normal sensations of hunger and appetite to function properly again.
I find this highly implausible, from anything resembling an ev-psyc point of view. Note for example that even animals that don’t have culture have an innate drive to reproduce.
Smart animals generally have a drive to have sex, not a drive to reproduce. Evolution didn’t anticipate (because that blind idiot god never anticipates) that some species would be so so smart that they could easily fulfill the sex drive without reproducing. However, at this point, given the ease of birth control in much of the world, there should be direct selection pressure for wanting to reproduce, not just have sex.
As long as some people exist who tend to actually reproduce—whether or not they consciously want it—they will outbreed those who don’t reproduce and dominate the population.
Any solution proposing to change people (biologically, culturally, etc) so that they can reproduce but usually don’t, must make very sure there are absolutely no heritable exceptions.
JoshuaZ is basically correct- we evolved to pursue sex and to love kids once born, not to pursue reproduction in the abstract. Relevant LW article.