Social (and other) implications of longevity

[Anthony G Williams]

So our future society would be one in which everyone lives a very long time, and everyone is sterile.

That would be a society full of desperate women, most of whom are biologically programmed to want a child - and a lot of them would do anything to have one. Sounds like a recipe for a very unhappy and frustrated society.

Of course, it might mean that the murder rate goes up, in order to vacate some places to enable more children to be born...

 

[skeptical]

Note what I said about the development of robotics.
Every frustrated woman/would-be-mother can have her very own baby robot - programmed to poop on command!

 

[Vertigo]

Actually I suspect that we would have to find a way of "de-programming" the reproductive imperative. After all, all such things have to be in the genes somewhere and I suspect we would have to find the genes to fix that particular problem. We should not underestimate how strong the drive is to pass on our genes (says this confirmed bachelor who decided long ago, without regret, that he didn't want to contribute to the world population ) and we should also not underestimate our future ability to control our genes in almost any way we choose (which is of course a whole other topic for debate).

With regard to sexuality, I'm not quite so sure about that one. I think it was in Anthony's thread that someone brought up the topic of the menopause which was brushed aside as something our future technology could fix. However there is a big problem there; as I understand it women are born with a finite number of ova and that's it, I suspect it would take some major work to change that and probably not desirable anyway given the need to control the population. More likely that on maturity men would have their sperm frozen and women their ova, before being sterilised. Conception would then be exclusively through IVF (probably much simpler than reversing sterilisation) and it is quite likely that natural pregnancies would be voluntary and very rare. Given all that would we still be interested in sex after say the first 100 years or so? And if we were having removed the family producing aspect of it would it necessarily continue to be something tied to relationships, no matter how short or long they were.

On the cost front I would agree that cost would be likely to come down but in the interim how many would die "unnecessarily" and how much resentment would that generate. Also it might be an ongoing cost requiring repeat treatments. I am reminded of Pratchetts Strata where the currency in use was "days of life".

I would like to believe in the utopian ideal of a world where energy and robotics are abundant and people no longer need to work but looking at our history, as technology has improved and replaced workers the only result has always been poverty and third class citizens. I am just not confident that we will ever achieve such a world, apart from anything else it would not be in the interests of those with the most wealth and power. OK so maybe I'm a cynic but there you go.

Your point about property is interesting, I had not really considered that one and I think you are right that owning property would probably become something well beyond the means of most, perhaps all, private citizens. Instead maybe all property would be owned and managed by funds into which private people would invest (after all we seem to be moving that way already).

 

[Doctor Crankenstein]

Actually I suspect that we would have to find a way of "de-programming" the reproductive imperative. After all, all such things have to be in the genes somewhere and I suspect we would have to find the genes to fix that particular problem.

I disagree. Memes can be just as powerfull as Genes. Look at Japan at the moment. Arguably the most technologically advanced society in the world and it happens to have the lowest birth rate. So much so that if it doesn't employ immigration or some other means of sustaining it's population it will face a demographic crisis and it's population will drop from 107 million to 44 million in less than 50 years.

Here's a documentary that touches on what I just said about Japan (25 mins)

 

[Vertigo]

I disagree. Memes can be just as powerfull as Genes. Look at Japan at the moment. Arguably the most technologically advanced society in the world and it happens to have the lowest birth rate. So much so that if it doesn't employ immigration or some other means of sustaining it's population it will face a demographic crisis and it's population will drop from 107 million to 44 million in less than 50 years.

Here's a documentary that touches on what I just said about Japan (25 mins)

Couldn't watch it - got this message: "This video contains content from Current TV LLC, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds"

Ho hum!

However you may well be right in as much as I believe the population growth of most developed countries (is that still the right PC phrase) does seem to be falling or reversing. The problem is that most families are still having at least one or two children and in this sort of scenario almost all families would have zero children. There is a big difference between the two. I'm no expert on these matters though, so I freely admit I am only speculating. Also I don't think it is a big issue - we would have to adjust to not having children and whether that adjustment is natural or engineered is ultimately not relevant. The point still being that we would not end up with frsutrated wannabe parents because the "wannabe" part would have had to be fixed one way or another.

 

[The Judge]

PS sorry for the double post but couldn't figure how to multiquote over two pages

It's just the same, isn't it? Hit the "Multi Quote this Message" button on the first post, first page, and then go onto page two and multi-quote the rest, "proper" quoting the last one -- it remembers the first one even if it is overleaf.

Yep, just experimented and it works fine. And if a techno-idiot like me can do it...

 

[Vertigo]

It's just the same, isn't it? Hit the "Multi Quote this Message" button on the first post, first page, and then go onto page two and multi-quote the rest, "proper" quoting the last one -- it remembers the first one even if it is overleaf.

Yep, just experimented and it works fine. And if a techno-idiot like me can do it...

Ah well I'm supposed to be a techie, I guess the techies that wrote the code for the forum were smarter than me (not too difficult) as I had assumed it would lose it when you clicked to another page - I shall remember for the future

 

[skeptical]

Japan's fertility is a little below 1.3. That is, on average, each woman has 1.3 children.

Now if the world has the same fertility, and a life span of 500, it would still more than double in population size before dropping slowly. Since we are supposed to level off at 9 billion by the year 2040, this will mean an eventual population size of over 18 billion....

Re robots. If there is no disaster, it is inevitable that humanity will design sophisticated robots. And as with everything else, they will drop in cost till they become pretty much ubiquitous. I draw this conclusion from recent history - the last 200 years. Technological development leads to greater and greater sophistication, and lower and lower prices. Inevitable really.

Technological development will also lead to them becoming more and more reliable. I must admit, it still crosses my mind to wonder how we will keep them under control. It is almost inevitable that the design of computer and robotic minds will pass into the hands of computers and robotic minds. Eventually, we will have computer and robotic minds that are many fold more intelligent than humans, and they will be designing yet smarter computer and robot minds. When the average lawnmower has an IQ of 10,000 you have to ask why they would bother taking care of those stupid humans...

 

[Vertigo]

18 billion... something would break first!

I agree that the technology would become ever cheaper - but my fear is that there would be an underclass of unemployed people who would have nothing. It is just possible that if/when we eventually crack fusion power energy might become abundant and virtually free, but I still suspect we would have an underclass, power heirarchies simply don't work without one and we have never managed any kind of society in history without a power heirarchy, so I suspect those in power would ensure the society is so structured. OK so I'm a pessimist about some things. I like to think a utopian society like Banks' culture society might exist one day but knowing human nature I'm not too hopeful. Then again with such control over genetics the spectre of a Brave New World starts to loom - all in the interests of maintaining a happy, contented underclass of course.

Your last point brings us around to the AI thread where I ask exactly the same question; why would they bother? There are actually some good answers to that question given there: http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/528075-anomalies-of-ais-in-modern-science-fiction.html

 

[skeptical]

I have no problem with the idea of a society without genuine 'have nots'. The problem is always, not that the poor are terribly poor, but that there is a big disparity between the poor and the rich.

Over the past 200 years, there has been a trend towards some form of social assistance for those who are without a means of making a living. So we end up with a social class on welfare. How poor are those on welfare? Poor indeed, compared to the wealthy. But poor compared to those called poor 200 years ago?

No. Today's poor are those who live in a garage, and can afford only an old CRT colour TV., and a second hand car. They are characterised by obesity - not hunger. Their condition, compared to those who were poor in the 19th Century, is excellent.

The problem is that they do not compare themselves to the poor of the past. They compare themselves to the wealthy of the present. That creates a perception of failure, and of poverty probably beyond the reality. However, most of our social problems coming from the poor are a result of that perception.

Anyway, what I am leading up to is that the poorest in our western society are getting wealthier generation by generation, and when longevity becomes the norm, it is probable that they will receive it also. There may, of course, be a time period in which their poverty is too much, and they do not receive longevity treatment, until the costs drop sufficiently. During that period, the gap is likely to create social unrest - to say the least!

 

[Vertigo]

Yes I think you've captured that about right - however it is the interim period I would be most worried up. Looking up to see the rich living a vastly better life is unpleasant but bearable when you know that death, the great leveller, awaits us all. But to find that your "superiors" no longer face that death, or at least not for a much greater time would, I think, be the last straw for many...

 

[[B00M] Headshot.]

Mhm yeah, new here, so I dont really want to annoy anyone here. Has anyone read
chasm city by Alastair reynaldos, anyone? The older immortal people in a theoretical society would be bored out of their minds having acomplished all of what they wanted to when they were younger, what kind of entertainments would they turn to too to cure their bordem? Also the younger generations would be driven higher and higher to acheive over what the previous generation has, for example real-estate would be highly saught<----(is this a word?) for (after?), and how would they acheive this, would the end justify the mean, leading back to the older generations would they turn to crime because they are bored, Also how would immortality affect crime rates and the way the legal system is run, would capital punishment have to be brought back (im from Aus and I know Capital punishment is accepted okay in some countrys), to deter Criminals and miscreants from commiting illegal actions, as for being sent to jail for 100 years for rape(really dispicable) being precievd by the majority as too soft, or for murder would the family be allowed to extract Justice/ legal Revenge on the murder/murderess if they wished too? Honestly I dont know where I am going with this post,but this is a too good a topic to pass without posting on, even tho I'm rambling. Hope I put some intersting ideas forward, sorry for errors, incosistances and general irrelavance. =)

 

[Vertigo]

Hi Headshot and welcome to the Chrons (you should pop over to the Introductions sub-forum and tell us a little about yourself).

Yes I have read Chasm City and AR certainly sees boredom being a potential problem but bear in mind this was a society where only the rich could afford the longevity treatments and they didn't have much to do other than get bored. I remember the scene with people effectively bungy jumping into the chasm but if you went too far down you got cooked. However speaking for myself I've done a fair bit in my time travelled around, climbed in the Andes and Himalayas... but there is still so much more that I want to do. So long as I could change careers at intervals I would be hard pushed to get bored for at least a couple of hundred years. However I'm not sure I would accept an irreversible, indefinte ageing treatment. Committing suicide would be a pretty tough thing to do for most rational people but simply deciding not to go for your rejuvenation this time around ('cos you've had enough) would be much easier.

Real estate is an issue that was discussed a little earlier in the thread. Generally considered to be the most certain long term investment so it would inevitably be popular. That said over the time periods we are addressing here particular bits of real estate have a habit of drifiting in and out of fashion so maybe not such a good investment when we are talking hundreds of years. By the way I think "sought after" is what you were looking for there .

Crime is an interesting one that I hadn't really stopped to think about. Capital punishment might become even less politically acceptable than it is today (not to sure about the wording of that one ). If you think about it, at the moment captial punishment is depriving the perpetrator of up to maybe something like 60 years, but with immortality it would be so much more. But then most captial punishment ismost commonly for the crime of murder which would also become far more serious for the same reason. Maybe sufficiently so to make captial punishment more acceptable not less. Really not sure on that one.