Live forever without children or live a normal life with children?

Temporary Sterilization until the age of 25
That outta solve a lot
Then, you have to get a permit to reverse the sterilization
To produce offspring is very easy, any mammal can do it
Do be a parent of productive member of a society...that requires a little more.

That's population control I can support

X

reply to post by crazyewok


Please remember that all conversations regarding the controlled reduction of fertility and birthrate ultimately devolve into eugenicistic arguments.

Live for a thousand years, looking 30 perhaps, in this world? This particular existence? This near hellzone existence, filled with pain, suffering, murder, slavery, wars, gmo foods?

You do realize this isn't home, and if a person improves themselves or even maintains dignity and peace, and cares about others, they're not coming back, and graduate to true immortality, or long assignments, in wonderful systems or heavenly homes, that are places worth being.

Nope, nada. They want to keep long lived slaves in hell! Just floors me, this is not home! There is no place like home, there is no place like home, there is no place like home!

reply to post by Xcouncil=wisdom

--
Idea is cool, but that's a one Societal way of thinking, those that live outside the norm in rural tribal areas won't do that, thus breed like rabbits....

reply to post by crazyewok


No im not trying to be difficult, I was seriously asking. Your answer with what you say is normal would have been good enough. No need to assume im being difficult. I would just like an idea of what most determine normal to be to them.

Maybe its the way I read the thread title, thats my bad. Sorry

Xcouncil=wisdom
Temporary Sterilization until the age of 25
That outta solve a lot
Then, you have to get a permit to reverse the sterilization
To produce offspring is very easy, any mammal can do it
Do be a parent of productive member of a society...that requires a little more.

That's population control I can support

X

There are so many things wrong with that, I don't even know where to begin so I am not even going to try. I am just going to point out a couple of things.

For women there there is a real and serious problem called Post Tubal Litigation Syndrome. At best, the symptoms are vague but debilitating at worst, deadly. A large percentage of women who get their tubes tied suffer from it, but lack of knowledge and a huge suppression effort has led to many women never knowing that their medical symptoms were the result of having their tubes tied. Women are lied to and told that sterilization doesn't affect their hormones. Well it does. They only cure is a successful tubal reversal that most can not afford and insurance doesn't cover it. It may require multiple surgeries costing up to 30 grand or more out of pocket. Even then there is no guarantee of success.

Tubal litigation and Vasectomies are very costly to reverse. Upwards of 6 to 10 grand. They are difficult to reverse. Tubal Litigation even more so. The rates of successful tubal litigation reversal is low and comes with huge risks suck as ectopic pregnancies and hormonal disorders.

That is just one small thing to think about.

reply to post by demus

I prefer people who shout: "overpopulation" learn how many percent of our Earth is actually inhabited... we can start from there. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, we could just go all live in the oceans, the deserts, the mountain slopes, Antarctica, the Northpole and the rain forests. I hear there is a lot of empty space on the moon too.

And let´s just forget about all the resources that the extra people living in these vacant areas are going to need.

I knew that I never would be a good parent. To irresponsible, selfwilled, prone to addictions and in love with the rock and roll lifestyle.
I had a vasectomy when I was 20. imo.........my decision was the "normal" thing to do; taking responsibility for my lack of responsibility...if that makes sense.

reply to post by Xcouncil=wisdom

Temporary Sterilization until the age of 25 That outta solve a lot

How´s that? What difference does it make if a couple has 3 children before or after 25? There is still 3 new humans in the end. And nowadays most people don't even have kids before they're 25, depending on where you live.

reply to post by olaru12

I had a vasectomy when I was 20

Dude, that must've taken huge balls.

AnteBellum
reply to post by crazyewok

 

But this is an issue that must be addressed soon within the next 100 years.

I think Monsanto is addressing that very issue now.

For the majority of people, quality of life greatly decreases sometime in their late 60's- early 70's. I'd rather live a short 70 good years than a long 100 years where the last 20/30 years are dealing with life-quality issues.

reply to post by crazyewok


As I don't want children myself - the answer is simple - live forever.
As I won't have a legacy to pass on, I may as well enjoy my own legacy haha

calstorm
Tubal litigation and Vasectomies are very costly to reverse. [...] That is just one small thing to think about.

With a little bit of motivation and a little government money/research thrown at the problem, we could come up with a low side-effect, very effective, easily reversible temporary sterilization method for both men and women.

Just like with the problem of starvation in various parts of the world, the problem isn't technology or lack of resources. The problem is political. Forcing birth control on people is still seen as a totalitarian move. People still see reproduction as a "human right," regardless of the massive problems it creates for humanity and the planet.

It's not surprising. There are a lot of people who won't spay or neuter their pets because it's "unnatural." A lot of people see reproduction a mandate from God. They would much rather see the populations of pets or people controlled by such delightfully natural methods as disease and starvation.

As for the original question: Living forever would be hell. Living forever with other people's children would be double hell.

reply to post by crazyewok


First - gene therapy led nowhere. ALL the breakthroughs are in epigenetics and companies devoted to genetics are either bankrupt or in the process of developing new epigenetics divisions.

That said - overpopulation would not be a problem in a stress-free world. It's quite clear that stress drives reproduction; stress on an individual is interpreted by hardwiring as stress on the species, and the individual is driven to reproduce. Remove the stress, and population rates go down - conversely, increase the stress and population goes up.

Besides poverty, stress-induced "age-related" diseases represent the greatest stress on our species - these are the very diseases that epigenetic therapies promise to treat (not "aging" per se). If these therapies are made universally available, and the stress of poverty universally removed, we will see a natural reduction in population.

reply to post by soficrow


Interesting thought and you can certainly see that in Italy that have had problems with death rate being higher than birth.

reply to post by crazyewok


lol. Maybe look at reproduction rates by class - eugenicists used to complain that "the poor breed like rabbits."

Since I neither have, nor want (and I'm now 48) children, the question is simply one of do I really want to live forever? Probably ony if I can have my 24 year old body back!

oops, double post

reply to post by crazyewok


To choose the first option would bring about the downfall of Mankind simply because without children our society would stagnant. Apathy would kill us even if we had our immortality.

reply to post by soficrow


I wondered at what you said, and perhaps that is the man in you who does not realize, most woman have a marked increase in sexual drive once they are unable to have children - whether that inability comes from natural factors or a temporary inability caused by contraceptives. Then I realized perhaps you are working on very old information which has since been shown false.

So I will say, you are incorrect that economics has anything to do with fertility rates.

Here are two great papers to read concerning this. It is actually unobstructed and easy access to contraception as well as true information concerning contraception and its side effects which causes a decline in fertility rates in even the most impoverished of areas.

The Impact of Freedom on Fertility Transition: Revisiting the Theoretical Framework

The impact of freedom on fertility decline

Humans are very sexual, nothing stops them from having sex many more times than necessary for simple childbearing... its a matter of women having family planning choices on the table that will cause a decline reproductive rates. Economics has little to do with it.

Good papers above if you are interested!



reply to post by crazyewok


I would never in a million years choose a prolonged life verses a normal life span and children.

Cannot imagine that anyone would choose different, but most do seem to have an inordinate fear of death for some reason so I probably shouldn't be surprised.

Oddly, my husband had a nightmare about just this exact thing the other night - living for almost a thousand years due to medical breakthroughs - I'll tell him about the thread.