Controlling the population will be a key element of Sustainable survival. Over population is a drain on precious resources. Fortunately since people 100 years from now no longer need to work a working population is no longer important. The birth and mortality rates can be carefully controlled to a sustainable level so as not to be a drain on resources. I have speculated that the population would be double what it is today in Part 1 – Considerations but it could be far less perhaps significantly less than the current population.
The birth rates are a very simple matter to control but the mortality rates of seniors and others is more problematic. I am assuming that the mortality of the general population will be extremely low due to continuing miracles of medical science. Will this simply mean that medical care will not be available for people beyond some age or physical condition? Or perhaps this means that the birth rate will simply be adjusted to the mortality rate. Of course it is possible that the genetic mechanism for aging may have been identified and altered so people would simply stop aging. In that case the birth rates would be greatly restricted or reduced. There are simply too many scenarios for controlling population but it cannot be allowed to proceed naturally as it is now without consequences to sustainability that threaten the survival of our species.
Perhaps even the term species may be a bit tricky. I assume genetic engineering will be infinitely more advanced than today. I cannot help believe that our genes may be so altered, as indicated in the previous paragraph, that we would no longer age. Carrying this even further perhaps we would genetically be programed not to eat so much, perspire and drink far less water, defecate less thus producing less sewage, grow teeth with super enamel so that we would not have to brush our teeth, be less susceptible to all kinds of diseases reducing the need for medical care, etc. This would allow man to consume far fewer resources and live for a few hundred years in excellent health so he could enjoy life throughout his long life. I believe that this is the most likely scenario for population control. It creates the least amount of moral conundrums in terms of controlling the mortality of people such as seniors. When I say stay young I mean it in all sense of he word including a sound and pliable mind.
Births would be so rare, perhaps only a couple of percent of the population annually that it may be done totally artificially to control the development of the fetus and eliminate the complexities of the birth process. This may not seem very attractive or acceptable by today’s social standards but 100 years from now it may be the social norm.
Speaking of social norms, just as the social norms of today are dramatically different than those of 100 years ago the social norms of the distant future will be dramatically different than they are today due to technological and medical advancements in the next 100 years. Moral values may also be very different due to the physical and social environment in which people live in the very distant future. Imagine how life would be like if one could live in the body of a 25 year old for a couple of hundred years. What would limit mortality if the aging genetic mechanisms could be removed from our bodies? Interesting question. What would people die of other than from accidents. Of course there would be mutations that might have adverse affects that are not medically correctable that might do some people in.
- Jobs and Economics
- Recreation & Entertainment
- Population Control
- Crime and Security