Overpopulation And Immortality
Many worry that radical life extension or the elimination of death will lead to overpopulation and ecological destruction. In other words, while it may be best for individuals to live forever, it might be collectively disastrous. Readers may recognize this situation as an instance of the “tragedy of the commons.” Acting in their apparent self-interest, individuals destroy a common good. For example, it may be convenient for individuals to pollute, but eventually, this is catastrophic for us all. However, I don’t think such considerations should deter our pursuit of technological immortality. Here’s why.
First, fertility rates are currently plummeting around the world. But even if the population continues to increase, the carrying capacity of our planet depends on our constantly progressing technology which may allow us to comfortably sustain more people in the near future. Now I’m not saying that the goal of scientific research should be to find ways to increase the population. No. I want science to investigate how to prolong the healthy lives of those already living. I’d much prefer to have fewer children than to get cancer or dementia.
Moreover, if we have conquered death, then we may already be transhuman or post-humans living after a technological singularity. Such beings may not want to propagate, since achieving a kind of immortality is a major motivation for having children. Posthumans would be relatively independent of the physical environment too — their bodies may be impervious to environmental stressors, or they may not have bodies at all. In such cases, concerns about overpopulation would be irrelevant. Put simply, the tragedy of 150,000 people dying every single day — 100,000 of them from age-related causes — is a huge price to pay for speculative hypotheses about the future. We simply shouldn’t assume that our concerns as biological beings today will be relevant in the future.
Furthermore, preserving the minds that now exist may be a better survival strategy than educating new ones. After all, educating young minds is an arduous and oftentimes unsuccessful project. In the future, we will need educated and mature minds for their invaluable knowledge and wisdom. So why not preserve the minds we have rather than start the educational process from scratch each time?
These are just a few reasons why we should try to eliminate death, dealing with overpopulation — assuming we must — when the time comes. This could be considered reckless but remember there is no risk-free way to proceed. Whatever we do, or don’t do, has risks. If we cease developing technology, we will not be able to prevent the inevitable asteroid strikes or respond to other existential threats that will threaten all life; if we continue to die young, we may not develop the intelligence necessary to design better technology. Given these considerations, we shouldn’t let hypotheticals about the future deter our research into defeating death.
Note too that the overpopulation objection to life-extending research could have been leveled in the past at work on the germ theory of disease or other life-extending research and technology. Don’t cure diseases because that will lead to overpopulation! Don’t treat sick children because they might survive and have more children! I think most of us are glad we have a germ theory of disease and treat sick children. Our responsibility is to help people live long, healthy lives, not worry that by doing so other negative consequences might ensue. We are glad that some of our ancestors decided that a twenty-five-year life span was insufficient. Do we wish instead that they had worried that curing diseases and extending life would have negative consequences?
Most importantly, I believe it is immoral for us to reject anti-aging research, thereby forcing future generations to die involuntarily. After anti-aging technologies are developed, the living should be free to choose to live longer, live forever, or even die young if they want to. But it would be immoral for us not to try to make death optional for them. If we make decisions for them — we accept death so they must too — we would be imposing our values upon them. Yes, we tolerate a high death rate to compensate for a high birth rate, but our descendants may not share this value.
Think of it like this. Death is like having a bomb strapped to our chest.1 The bomb is with us from birth and can detonate at any time. If it is in our power to remove that bomb for future generations, then we should, not let hypothetical concerns about future negative consequences deter us from removing those explosives. I’d bet that future generations will thank us for removing their bombs, even if they eventually decide that a hundred years of consciousness is enough. I’m sure they will be thankful that we gave them the option to live longer, thankful that we disarmed the bomb.
Nonetheless, some lovers of death don’t want to remove their bombs because their detonation seems natural, or it will take them to heaven. But I question how seriously they believe such things though. When humans conquer death, when they learn to remove the bombs — they will remove them. People who have been given the option to live forever will be grateful that they have the real thing, instead of the promises they now pay for in church. We shouldn’t condemn future generations to death; we should give them the option to live longer and better lives.
While my defense of indefinite lifespans has thus far centered primarily around moral concerns, the computer scientist Alexandre Maurer has offered mathematical reasons to doubt the whole premise of the overpopulation objection as it concerns longevity. He demonstrates that fertility rates and not longevity are the true culprits in population increases. A spectacular extension of life will have a negligible effect on population growth compared to a slightly greater fertility rate. To explain, he offers a simple example.
Assume an initial population of 1000 people. The fertility rate is 2, and the life expectancy is 80. Women give birth at 20. Now, let us consider two variations:
Case A: Death disappears. Nobody dies anymore!
Case B: The fertility rate slightly increases from 2 to 2.5.
Which of these two cases will lead to the greater population increase? A quick calculation gives the following results:
After 500 years, the population will be 26,000 in case A, and at least 780,000 in case B: 30 times more than in case A.
After 1000 years, the population will be 51 000 in case A, and at least 206,000,000 in case B: more than 4000 times case A.
Thus the disappearance of death “only causes a linear population increase; while a fertility rate slightly greater than 2 causes an exponential population increase.” This means that early deaths are inefficient means of population control compared to lower birth rates. Another consideration is that:
There is an inverse correlation between fertility and longevity: population increases the most in the countries with the shortest life expectancy. The common cause is poverty: when infant mortality is high, there is an incentive to have many children to ensure that some of them eventually survive. In addition, when there is no retirement system, the only “retirement insurance” consists in having many children. Further, to this double incentive to have children, must be added the lack of access to contraception, and a lack of information about it.2
The implication of all this is that “people concerned about overpopulation should focus on reducing inequalities and improving the standard of living of the poorest countries.”
Today, in rich countries, underpopulation is more of a problem than overpopulation, and rich countries would benefit enormously from increased healthy lifespans. Moreover, since rich countries will probably be the first to benefit from life-sustaining technologies, it “is very unlikely that increasing life expectancy will result in an overpopulation crisis; especially since such an increase will first happen in rich countries, where the fertility rate is low.”
Furthermore, better material security generally leads people to have fewer children. Remember too that “even if we lived 1000 years, a fertility rate slightly lower than 2 (e.g.,1.9) is sufficient in the long-term to result in a decreasing population.”
In conclusion, the moral arguments for increasing life spans are robust, and the overpopulation objection to living longer, healthier lives is weak.
____________
1I would like to thank Joshua Shrode for suggesting this image.
2Alexandre Maurer. “Longevity = Overpopulation: The Erroneous Equation,” Institute of Ethics & Emerging Technologies, 2016–07–05
