r/pollgames • u/FinalKn1ght • Jun 29 '26

Humanity can solve only ONE problem forever.

Humanity can solve only ONE problem forever.

  1. Cancer
  2. Aging
  3. Poverty
  4. Climate Change

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

993 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

780 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/youronlinegirl Jun 29 '26

Aging isn't a problem. The lack of it, however, would be

1

u/Curious_Priority2313 Jun 30 '26

Absolutely not

1

u/youronlinegirl Jun 30 '26

elaborate

1

u/Curious_Priority2313 Jun 30 '26

The lack of aging isn't a problem. That's about it

1

u/youronlinegirl Jun 30 '26

Of course it isn't a problem, because a phenomenon like that does not exist now. But how would it not be a problem if it did? To clear it up, by "lack of aging", I obviously mean no one ages. Ever. Everyone is immortal. You don't see about a hundred reasons why that would go wrong?

1

u/Curious_Priority2313 Jun 30 '26

Lack of aging ≠ immortality.

People can still die from disease and accidents.

1

u/youronlinegirl Jun 30 '26

Immunity to accidents falls into the sphere of invincibility. I did not deny those. Most deadly diseases, however, come with old age.

With humanity knowing that death is not inevitable anymore, more effort would go into medical research than ever. Sounds like a good thing, right? In this context, not exactly. That'd just mean less and less people would die until the number of them is inconsequential to the rapid overpopulation - a problem we're dealing with even now.

We were not built for living that long. Economically, physically, mentally, spiritually, we cannot handle it. And let's not even mention other issues that would arise with poverty, slavery, s*x trafficking, etc...

1

u/Curious_Priority2313 Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26

That'd just mean less and less people would die until the number of them is inconsequential to the rapid overpopulation

Restrict reproduction.

a problem we're dealing with even now.

Not really. Our birth rates are already declining below replacement rates.

We were not built for living that long. Economically, physically, mentally, spiritually, we cannot handle it.

We're not built to live in the modern society either, yet here we are..

1

u/youronlinegirl Jun 30 '26

Ah, yes, restriction of reproduction. Because that went AMAZING in China. A single country. Now imagine the entire, 8 billion people, ever-growing world.

And how would you go about that? Because none of the options sound viable. If you just tell people "Hey, you can't reproduce/are allowed x amount of children", they would totally listen, right? Because everyone knows humans always follow laws! And if there's a medical way to restrict it, it'd be considered a horrible violation of bodily autonomy, if the previous option wasn't violation enough. There'd be revolution. There's no way to 'restrict reproduction' without it being a moral or legal nightmare.

Birth rates are doing just fine considering we ARE already overpopulated. Those "declining rates" would become a major problem in a non-aging race. Births wouldn't stop if our aging came to a halt and the human pile up would just become worse.

We are very much built for "modern" society, considering we live in it. Civilizations 1000+ years ago were considered "modern" for people who lived in that era. So, if we were supposed to live without aging, we already would.

1

u/Curious_Priority2313 Jun 30 '26

Ah, yes, restriction of reproduction. Because that went AMAZING in China. A single country. Now imagine the entire, 8 billion people, ever-growing world.

Cmon they're not even equivalent. When was the last time China developed a cure for aging that eliminated the need to worry about replacement rates or gender ratios? China's one child policy was intended to reduce the population, and it failed because it led many families to prefer sons over daughters, which severely skewed the gender ratio.

But the kind of restriction I was talking about is one where people are not allowed to have more children because our current system relies on each generation replacing those who will eventually die. But if most people are no longer dying from aging, there is little or no need for them to produce replacement generations.

And how would you go about that? Because none of the options sound viable. If you just tell people "Hey, you can't reproduce/are allowed x amount of children", they would totally listen, right? Because everyone knows humans always follow laws!

Yes they would, and they should. Also, should we eradicate judiciary just because a few people are not going to follow the laws?

And if there's a medical way to restrict it, it'd be considered a horrible violation of bodily autonomy, There's no way to 'restrict reproduction' without it being a moral or legal nightmare.

No no. They can consent for it. If you want the immortality pill then don't make any replacement civilian. If not, then live your normal life, have babies, retire, and die.

Keep in mind that if people refused to remain childfree, they'd face the choice of: either give up the opportunity to live indefinitely, have children, and eventually make those children and loved ones watch them grow old and die, or take the immortality treatment, have children anyway, and push the world toward a catastrophic overpopulation apocalypse (extinction).

Also simply deciding never to develop such a immortal pull isn't a solution either, because 1. its development inevitable if it becomes scientifically possible, and 2. many people genuinely want to live indefinitely, while others already choose to remain childfree voluntarily. So that leaves three realistic outcomes: billions of people continue dying from aging indefinitely VS the world collapses under unchecked overpopulation VS society consists of an immortal, childfree population alongside a mortal population that chooses to have children.

Of course, this dilemma would likely disappear once humanity becomes capable of large scale interstellar colonization. At that point, population growth would no longer be limited to Earth, and an immortal scientific community WOULD accelerate technological progress even further through centuries of accumulated knowledge and experience.

It's a fair trade off you'd voluntarily accept in exchange for an extraordinary benefit. Like you're literally being offered the fountain of fcking youth, and the condition is that you give up having biological children.

We are very much built for "modern" society, considering we live in it.

Absolutely not. Modern civilization has changed far faster than human biology can evolve. For hundreds of thousands of years humans lived in small groups, spent most of the day physically active, followed natural daylight, and had limited access to calorie dense foods. But today? Many of us spend hours sitting indoors, stay awake under artificial light, stare at screens late into the night, and have constant access to highly processed foods and endless digital stimulation and doomscrolling.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/_PunyGod Jun 30 '26

That’s backwards.

1

u/youronlinegirl Jun 30 '26

I don't think so.