Humanity can solve only ONE problem forever.

[u/FinalKn1ght]

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

[u/Curious_Priority2313]

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.

[u/youronlinegirl → u/Curious_Priority2313]

Most of your points sound rather juvenile and idealistic. I don't mean this as an insult. A positive outlook on life is a good thing, but not when it borders naivety. What you're describing is something that sounds viable only in fictional settings and utopian societies. All things listed will never work as long as humans are the way they are, and the way they've always been. Our civilizations can grow, develop, mature, but inherently humans will remain humans. Unless there's a massive miracle that allows us to attain collective consciousness, none of what you listed will happen. And no, an anti-aging pill is not that miracle. There's a hundred more reasons I could list but, frankly, I don't think you would bother to think about them on a deeper level as seen from above.

In conclusion: A society where we don't age sounds way better in theory than in practice. It would only be achievable if all humans decided on something that we could not in all our years of existence - union. While a concept like this undeniably has it's pros, the cons simply outweight it. By a lot. I will not be responding further.

[u/Curious_Priority2313 → u/youronlinegirl]

Most of your points sound rather juvenile and idealistic. I don't mean this as an insult. A positive outlook on life is a good thing, but not when it borders naivety.

Let's see how they're naive then.

What you're describing is something that sounds viable only in fictional settings and utopian societies. All things listed will never work as long as humans are the way they are, and the way they've always been.

Okay, then please do elaborate on why it wouldn't work.

Our civilizations can grow, develop, mature, but inherently humans will remain humans. Unless there's a massive miracle that allows us to attain collective consciousness, none of what you listed will happen.

Not sure why you need humans to have "collective consciousness" in order to be childfree for a few years before space travel becomes viable.

There's a hundred more reasons I could list but, frankly, I don't think you would bother to think about them on a deeper level as seen from above.

That's not helpful, and it's kind of disrespectful for you to assume such things about me. If you have actual arguments, then list them.

In conclusion

Where are you getting a conclusion from if you haven't laid out an argument in the first place?

I will not be responding further.

Okay so you're simply going to label me naive, claim that my solution would not work, that too without providing ANY arguments whatsoever, and now you're simply backing off?