Hacker News Reader

Comment by andr | Hacker News Reader

It would slow down technical innovation.

People grow accustomed to their surroundings and find newer technology suspicious and unneeded. That's why leaps in innovation are most easily embraced by the generations born with them (ie., current teenagers using computers for communication where their parents use phones).

If people can live 1000 years, that would cause overcrowding of the Earth. So if we don't expand to other planets, there would need to be some kind of very serious birth control.

This would increase the average age of Earth's population and, as discussed before, make them less interested in innovative products.

View on HN

If we can get to the point where we're reversing aging, I think we can safely assume reversible sterilization.

Use an economic solution (really simplified here): When you receive anti-aging treatment, you're temporarily sterilized. Each person then gets 1 credit for a child. 3 credits are required to bear a child. One can purchase or sell their credit for children as one would like.

For the first time in human history, if one wants children, they'll have to put conscious effort into it. Only those who _really_ want children will have them.

...unless you don't want anti-aging treatment, then you can have as many kids as you'd like and become 'immortal' the old fashioned way.

I'm not sure it would be necessary. Kids in developed nations are already considered optional (vs. undeveloped countries where you put your kids to work so you can eat) so as people get accustomed to having more time to raise kids then they may seem them as much less of a priority and birthrates would continue to decline to offset the increased lifespans. I do wonder what people would consider to be the age of maturity at which you are expected to be on your own. Would people expect to be cared for by their parents until they are 300?

You could have a law, if you take anti-aging meds you must leave the planet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com