X-Message-Number: 10785
From: "Trygve B. Bauge" <>
Subject: Longevity as a means to prevent over-population
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 10:58:21 +0100

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  

Every so often I run into people who oppose individual longevity for the
reason that if we live longer the world would be over crowded.  

It seems to me that if we were able to slow the ageing process, women
would be fertile later and stay fertile longer.  

If they used this to on average get more kids, or if they still got their
kids as early as they otherwise would have, then of course there would be
more of us around.  

However, the trend in Western capitalistic societies has been towards
fewer off spring. The wealtier we have become and the more leisure time we
have gotten, the fewer off spring per family. At least that has been the
trend here in Norway for a generation now.  

There is no reason to think that this trend won't continue if we got even
longer life, and thus in fact more wealth and more leisure time.  

Being fertile longer might prevent the mad dash towards motherhood by
those who are thirty to forty years old.  

What I am saying is that if women live longer it doesn't lead to increases
in the population growth if they also on avarage wait longer before they
get whatever kids they would be getting anyway.  

When there cmes to preventing over crowding: There is no need to legislate
limitations on getting offspring. There is no need to mandate that one
wait with geting kids. In a free society, individual women of all ages
will get kids, and some will still get many kids. All that is needed is a
voluntary trend towards getting fewer kids and getting these later in

All that is needed for increased longevity to not give increases in the
overall population is for each woman on average to not get more than
slightly more than 2 kids, and to wait longer with getting those kids.  

If we on average get more years between the generations, this would offset
any increased longevity, as far as the effect on the total population.  

E.g. if we had on average 40 years between the generations, we could have
kids, parents and grand parents, being 40, 80 and 120 years old
respectively, without there being more of us around.  

If I am to make an educated guess I would assume that increases in average
longevity will lead to a decrease in the overall population. E.g. the
longer we live the less inclined we will be to get kids, On the other hand
we might get more inclined to get cloned. But that too wouldn't
necessarily increase the overall population either. If we increase the
average generation between each person and its clone, the same would apply
for cloning as for traditional off springs: Any increases in longevity can
be offset by increasing the average generation span. There could on
average easily be 3 or 4 clones of each individual walking around at any
time e.g. as kid, parent and grand parent to one another, without this
leading to a larger world population.  

Population booms are usually linked to areas with short life spans, e.g.
unfree areas with unrest and not much hope for a long and free life.  

Lack of liberty and lack of longevity is the cause of crowding. Longevity
on the other hand might be the cure against crowding.  


Life-Extension Systems, Norwegian Icebathing Association & Action 88. For
a VHS video presentation of my work, send $50 to Trygve B.Bauge  c/o
Aksjon 88, P.o.b.59 Hovseter,0705 Oslo,Norway Ph 47-2214-8078 E-mail: 

Content-Type: text/html;

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10785