B) Despite all of the medical advances we have made, we have hardly put a dent in old age. Medical science has made great progress in stopping people from dieing young, which has pushed up the average lifespan. But a 100 year old today is still likely to die within a few years even with the most advanced medical treatment.
Having said that, at some point, we are likely to start making breakthroughs in maximum lifespan, which could very quickly put us back into rapid population growth. Eventually, we would probably see society adjust to the point that having any children is no longer expected of a typical human, but that could be a painful transition depending on how quickly we we go from a lifespan of ~100 to unbounded.
[0] Although it is not clear if this is directly related to infant mortality, or a response to broader economic changes,
Human biology is incredibly complex, and there has been no evolutionary pressure for it to sustain itself beyond its natural biological clock. These problems are probably solvable eventually, but not until we live long enough to see them. Which problems means we will have at least a few generations of people die after the initial old-age cure.
"We have already largely solved infant mortality in the developed world, and are making progress on the issue globally."
...certainly makes me feel feelings about population growth!!
Meanwhile world population growth peaked in the late 60s and has been in decline ever since. The 21st century will likely see the global population reaching its limit at less than 11bln.
That's still a lot, but not nearly as much as 16bln.
Which Town and what Height of Buildings would you rather be a tenant of?
...I don't know about Human Population, but I know that "more code" is certainly not "better code", just as "more sub-systems" does not mean "more quality of code"
Getting rid of cancer will alleviate a huge source of suffering and despair and it will do nothing of consequence to the population. Even if it did we should not care.
Yes, absolutely. Surely population growth can be dealt with more humanely than killing people off with cancer.
Was the patient body full of DOW Chemical or DDT or Big Gulps or Pharmaceuticals[0]? industrial Society and Old Age are what "kill people by means of cancer"
[0] USA being the only country I know of to allow public Advertisement of Controlled medicines
I propose the DEFAULT be no growth or no decay. Of course it's natural for animals to spread and be fertile. Of course. But we already conquered and inhabited everywhere with land and water.
Obviously Technology will advance or stall (or collapse) regardless of my small whims -\o/-
First among those is that very few countries have birth rates that exceed replacement rates! And the others are on a very strong trend to follow over the next 10-20 years.
These sorts of articles are a weird attractor on this site…
Not sure about other part but in the western world birth rate is gong down and is not enough to offset decrease of the population. Having people leave longer will not change it in any way. If we ever grow to this number it will not be because of curing cancer.
>"Even the idea that "GDP should rise 2% every year" makes me nauseous."
You think anybody responsible for GDP growth gives a hoot about what "makes you nauseous"?