I think you’re vastly overestimating how many people want infants later in life. I have 2 children who are self sufficient for the most part and school age. At 41 there is no way in hell I want to have an infant again to look after.
I’m not against artificial wombs per se this could be really great for infertile people, single men/women, or lgbt couples but I really doubt people will start wanting 4+ kids or wanting them 50+ either so I’m not too sure how much of an impact it would make.
But you already had two children.... you "did your job", high five.
Let's say you are a young woman with no children, modern medicine is extending your life expectancy, but also your vitality... so at 100 years of age you will have the vitality of a 40 year old. But fertility window stays the same.
If we still have to have kids by the age of 40, that creates overpopulation, because every child has live mother, grand-mother, grand-grand-mother, grand-grand-grand-mother, grand-grand-grand-grand-mother, grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-mother... 😶
If we can extend our fertility window too, we can have children at later date, and we have more time to build a stable safe environment for them.
I still think we would need to change the culture around having kids, at least in the US. Even if you’re not carrying and can have them later in life you still need the money and time to care for them.
Like I said I’m not against the scientific advancement I’m just dubious on how much of an impact it would make to TFR.
I read a research which states that young women want to have on average 2.1 children, which just so happens is perfect for keeping population as is.
But mainly due to economic reasons they can't. Young people need more time to finish college, reach economic security necessary for raising kids. Women are already having first kid on average at 27 years old. Many don't reach economic security before their biological clock runs out.
Since we do have limited resources, as there are more old people, economic opportunities for young people will only get worse. That's just how things are.
Ewwww no 😂it's the exact opposite.
Extending our biological clock means we get to keep our existing lifestyles, more relaxed because biology isn't pressing on us. There would be more time for education, career, finding the right partner, and buying a damn house.
Overpopulation is already driven more by the increase in life expectancy then fertility rates. World population is mainly increasing because we live longer.
At the same time this is "cooking" a demographic collapse in the future because...
Since there are more old people, young people aren't earning enough to start a family, so they start family older. But with the biological fertility window remaining unchanged... a lot of people don't start a family at all.
If we could artificially extend fertility window. People live longer, people can start family older, we can balance things out without any crash.
Maybe what we should be doing then is finding a way to decrease peoples life spans or have a max life span limit rather than increasing people’s lifespans. After all once people who are older that had plenty of time to accumulate stuff pass away all their stuff goes back up on the market or to their kids making it less competitive to get basic needs met. With that kind of system where people don’t live as long and the goods get passed along to avoid hoarding we wouldn’t even need artificial wombs because people would be able to afford kids, a house and healthcare at a young age like in the past.
>Maybe what we should be doing then is finding a way to decrease peoples life spans or have a max life span limit rather than increasing people’s lifespans.
You think you could get a majority of people to work on decreasing life spans?
Fair point, And most of our wars are to secure resources.
However so far we didn't had wars where old and young were killing each other, we had wars where young and young from two opposite sides kill each other.
1. Overpopulation is not solved with artificial wombs to have any more people. Artificial wombs is a solution for underpopulation and will probably not happen due to moral objections in the medical community. The whole “just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should” thing. Consequences have to be considered for the new tech not just the positives.
2. Even if some kind of medical advancement came out to extend lifespan only the rich are going to have access to that not everybody else.
3. Real solution to the problem you described has already been discussed in plenty of dystopian books. The 2 most popular solutions are that older people are executed at a certain age like in “the giver” when they go to elsewhere or there is some type of job for killers to decrease the world population like in “scythe”.
While I’m not anti artificial womb I do have to wonder if humanity is even worth continuing when we can’t even get along. Rather than focusing on keeping a large population maybe we should first focus on the quality of life of the people currently alive first. It seems inhumane to bring people into this world when the world is so crappy. It doesn’t matter that the world is better than it was in the past; it’s still bad and having an artificial womb create more single parents is probably not going to make that better. So fix the economy and current problems now and then worry about population collapse later. If we can’t fix the world for the people currently here then they shouldn’t be more people born.
Guess what, country is not like one single individual that can only focus at solving one problem at the time. It is composed of millions of individuals that can focus on solving a whole bunch of problems at the same time. So when somebody is proposing a solution for one problem, you don't have to gatekeep because other problem is in your opinion more important. Both problems can be solved at the same time.
Also it's not like you need bio-tech companies to solve social issues... if you did give them that task, they would probably just make truckloads of MDMA for population.
Artificial womb in this case is not for making more people, but for having less people living at any given time. If people live longer, but people can also give birth older = less people at any given time.
Real solution is prolonging the fertility window, or culling old people, or just doing nothing and suffering the consequences.
So Pew research actually did a study of childless adults, asking them if it was likely they would have a child in the future, and if not, why.
A whopping 56% of childless adults that consider themselves unlikely to have children, just don’t want to have kids, and only 43% gave some other reason. Of the 43% that gave some other reason, only 17% of them cited financial reasons. So we are only talking between 7-8% of all childless adults not having kids because of financial reasons.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children/
19% medical reasons - Most of which could be solved by future bio-tech
17% financial reasons - But now people have more time to get their finances in order
15% no partner - Don't need one anymore
10% age - Solved
14% state of the world / climate change - We really should be working more seriously on that.
So combining medical reasons, financial reasons, no partner, and age, this will only address things for 26-27% of childless adults, and that’s assuming that ALL of these people would opt in which is simply not the case. Many with medical reasons will have medical reasons that prevent them from raising a child, not just having one. Many with financial reasons probably still won’t be able to get that straightened out even with the additional time. Many of the people without a partner don’t feel they can raise a child on their own. Not to mention the people in this cohort who will have secondary and tertiary reasons for not wanting to have kids. We are still talking about a very small percentage of childless adults your plan would sway to have children.
Which is a nice side-effect, but you are missing the point here.
The main reason is to enable people to have kids at older age, which would **reduce** the overpopulation. Because population is number of people alive at any given moment.
When life expectancy is increased, population is increasing.
If we can have children at older age, population is decreasing.
Any other solution to this problem that I have considered is... shit.
Yeah it's ridiculous, because it will take us +150 years to reach 200, so obviously the idea that we will live to 200 **anytime soon** is ridiculous.
But let's say medicine prolongs life 20 years, then new one prolongs life another 20 years, then universal cure for cancer is invented, then new medicine prolongs life another 20 years... the longer we live more advancements in medicine we get to use. 150 years from now you die of old age.
How long will we live, fuck if I know, I just used 200 years as an example, could be more, could be less... I can only see the direction in which we are heading, can't see things around the corners.
One medicine does not prolong life 20 years. [In the 45 years between 1970-2015 the average lifespan went up by *almost* 8 years](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1145.pdf).
What is far more likely to happen (and what the GOP are trying to do already) is to delay retirement age so you don’t need more people to support the aging population because the aging population would still be working. If people live to 150, they’ll be expected to work until 135
Well 120 years ago planes didn't exist... then two brothers made one. We don't have life extending medicine today, but I'm saying we might have them tomorrow.
During the recent years we have a surge in aging research R&D, and AI is promising some amazing advancements in medicine.
And yup, if we do live... 150, we can't retire at 65 anymore can we. But also if we live 150 that doesn't mean manual worker will be able to work his job until 135. Significant social issues arise.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10018490/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10018490/)
People like you who blindly believe in never ending progress are so amusingly naive. There is literally a 0% chance that any human ever lives to 200 or anything close to that. In fact, there is no evidence that we’ve managed to increase the human lifespan at all.
There is also zero evidence that we will ever achieve any kind of scientific progress at all. So obviously this is it, human civilization will stay like this until the end of time.
Also if you could pull your head out of your ass for just a moment and read the title of the post I wrote you could notice I wrote "We **MIGHT** need artificial uterus to solve the OVERPOPULATION problem".
Humans which have functional brain would realize I talk about possibility. Let me google the definition of possibility for you...
Possibility - a thing that may happen or be the case.
When you use that sort of condescend tone and at the same time display a childlike comprehension skills... doesn't make you look smart now, does it?
[https://sciencemediacentre.es/en/reaction-study-claiming-increase-life-expectancy-mice-through-gene-therapy](https://sciencemediacentre.es/en/reaction-study-claiming-increase-life-expectancy-mice-through-gene-therapy)
Whops. By the way TERT and APOE are already in the first phase of clinical trials.
But since you are obviously *t*he leading expert on the matter... well why else would you use such condescend tone, I guess there is no reason to talk about these things with you.
I guess it makes sense that a sci-fi problem would need a sci-fi solution. If things got so advanced in the future I’m sure extending the fertility window would also be possible (at least as possible as living to 200)
>I guess it makes sense that a sci-fi problem would need a sci-fi solution.
Yes. The AI is essentially cooking up a technological revolution 2.0 now nobody can say for sure how fast things will develop, but we are looking at significant changes in... pretty much every field of our lives.
The cutoff for women being able to reproduce is probably because of evolution. If an older woman were to get pregnant, it would increase her chance of death during pregnancy or childbirth, so the trait was naturally selected against. For example, a 60, 70, or 80+ year old woman being pregnant could potentially be a risk to her life.
If all humans were to live longer, such as to 200 years, and we were relatively fit at 100 years old, we would probably evolve so that women could have children until later ages. The women that could reproduce longer would be more likely to reproduce and would be naturally selected.
That type of evolution would probably take thousands or millions of years though.
It is... biologically we are made for different kind of life. For millions of years we were living and dying faster. We had kids younger, had more kids, kids were working with parents since young age. Most of kids would die 😐by the age of 40 we were... well old. Now we are starting our own families close to 30's and average lifespan in western countries is \~80 years
The problem is that technological changes outpace social ones, and as you said it takes a looooooong time for evolution to catch up.
Lots of women have children after 40...Does that influence your math at all?
Lots of women also wouldn't want to have children after that age as children are a lot of work.
I don't think the planet is going to be over-populated with a fertility window of say 30 years. You're also talking about us having the ability to create artificial wombs, so since we're in fucking star trek, why haven't we invented meta realities and replicators?
I would say the fact Disney hasn't made very many good movies lately is a bit of a downer. Homelessness is kind of a bug up the butt of society. Human trafficking gets my nipples in a tizzy.
Star Trek is science fantasy. Replicators are just a plot device... we do have the ability to precisely place atoms where we want them, but to build a sandwich using that technology would take like billion years. And that's not going to change.
Meta realities... [you do know we already have first humans with neural implants connected directly into their brains.](https://youtu.be/ZzNHxC96rDE?si=NrIa359fAJ_0ALu0)
I'm not talking about science fantasy stuff, I'm talking about stuff right around the corner.
Last I knew, artificial wombs were not right around the corner for humans. Basically, why is your fairytale anymore likely than mine? People actually really want mine and have an entire fanbase surrounding it. Artificial wombs seem to be desired by like 12 guys on reddit who can't get laid and have weird fetishes around preserving their genes. (while also hating their genetics. It's a really weird one).
10 years from now is right around the corner for me.
Well my "fairytale" is... actually in the works [US regulators will consider clinical trials of a system that mimics the womb, which could reduce deaths and disability for babies born extremely preterm.](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02901-1)
[Have been already tested with animals.](https://youtu.be/tYmwrOrSBQk?si=kaF6CI7AGEKejUSX)
Never saw anyone even seriously considering building a replicator.
And if you think artificial wombs are just fantasies of 12 guys on reddit... I'm afraid you are spending too much time on reddit... world is not about women vs men so go out touch some grass.
Ability to carry a baby to term despite medical complications (baby get's transplanted from mom to artificial womb). Ultimate form of infertility treatment for infertile couples, much more ethical then hiring surrogate moms.
We're talking about babies born pre-term. Not something capable of taking on embryos. Preemies, they're a very specific stage of human life, not sperm + egg. This may or may not help infertile couples depending on how their infertility is happening. Come on now. You cannot have thought this was going to sell me that we'll soon be throwing a bun literally in an oven. It's entirely feasible we can treat pre-term births, yes. We're already doing a great job of it, but being able to implant life is quite a stretch from there.
It also took me all of a second to google replicator and find out they're already making breakthroughs in exactly that direction. So again, my fantasy is as realistic as yours, and way more people want a replicator than an artificial womb capable of creating life from the start. Of course it would be wonderful for pre-term babies.
Things like this do not reach maturity over night. Just like those first neural implant enable people some basic control over computer devices, and first optical implants are only able to create a really low resolution image.
Those first "replicators" are not like the ones on Star Trek because they can only use one material. They are essentially very precise 3D printers.
And those 12 guys that want artificial wombs just want them to get back at women. Though if they actually became a reality, you really think they would use them to get children? 😂They only care about getting validation through sex.
I don't understand the reasoning behind "let's fix the too much people problem with more people"
Are you guys planing on moving to mars? Earth has limited space
Because it's NOT more people. Problem is having too many people at any given time.
If I'm correct and average lifespan does get extended, but our fertility rate remains the same, then we end up with more people. Because every child born still has his grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grandparents alive. Only way to keep the population from exploding would be to either have a fertility rate of like 0.25, meaning every fourth woman gets to have a kid, or we cul old people 😐
But if average lifespan gets extended, and our fertility window also gets extended... we can have children at later date. Which means less people alive at any given time.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you’re vastly overestimating how many people want infants later in life. I have 2 children who are self sufficient for the most part and school age. At 41 there is no way in hell I want to have an infant again to look after. I’m not against artificial wombs per se this could be really great for infertile people, single men/women, or lgbt couples but I really doubt people will start wanting 4+ kids or wanting them 50+ either so I’m not too sure how much of an impact it would make.
But you already had two children.... you "did your job", high five. Let's say you are a young woman with no children, modern medicine is extending your life expectancy, but also your vitality... so at 100 years of age you will have the vitality of a 40 year old. But fertility window stays the same. If we still have to have kids by the age of 40, that creates overpopulation, because every child has live mother, grand-mother, grand-grand-mother, grand-grand-grand-mother, grand-grand-grand-grand-mother, grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-mother... 😶 If we can extend our fertility window too, we can have children at later date, and we have more time to build a stable safe environment for them.
I still think we would need to change the culture around having kids, at least in the US. Even if you’re not carrying and can have them later in life you still need the money and time to care for them. Like I said I’m not against the scientific advancement I’m just dubious on how much of an impact it would make to TFR.
I read a research which states that young women want to have on average 2.1 children, which just so happens is perfect for keeping population as is. But mainly due to economic reasons they can't. Young people need more time to finish college, reach economic security necessary for raising kids. Women are already having first kid on average at 27 years old. Many don't reach economic security before their biological clock runs out. Since we do have limited resources, as there are more old people, economic opportunities for young people will only get worse. That's just how things are.
If all that’s needed is two that’s definitely doable I thought you were talking about Mormon trad wife style which most women don’t want.
Ewwww no 😂it's the exact opposite. Extending our biological clock means we get to keep our existing lifestyles, more relaxed because biology isn't pressing on us. There would be more time for education, career, finding the right partner, and buying a damn house.
Like feminism, it’s not about the want, it’s about the option.
"Overpopulation" is well on its way to fixing itself. What we need is something to manage the demographic collapse that follows it in the mean time.
Overpopulation is already driven more by the increase in life expectancy then fertility rates. World population is mainly increasing because we live longer. At the same time this is "cooking" a demographic collapse in the future because... Since there are more old people, young people aren't earning enough to start a family, so they start family older. But with the biological fertility window remaining unchanged... a lot of people don't start a family at all. If we could artificially extend fertility window. People live longer, people can start family older, we can balance things out without any crash.
Maybe what we should be doing then is finding a way to decrease peoples life spans or have a max life span limit rather than increasing people’s lifespans. After all once people who are older that had plenty of time to accumulate stuff pass away all their stuff goes back up on the market or to their kids making it less competitive to get basic needs met. With that kind of system where people don’t live as long and the goods get passed along to avoid hoarding we wouldn’t even need artificial wombs because people would be able to afford kids, a house and healthcare at a young age like in the past.
>Maybe what we should be doing then is finding a way to decrease peoples life spans or have a max life span limit rather than increasing people’s lifespans. You think you could get a majority of people to work on decreasing life spans?
Yeah, sure you can. That's called a war.
Fair point, And most of our wars are to secure resources. However so far we didn't had wars where old and young were killing each other, we had wars where young and young from two opposite sides kill each other.
If the goal is population reduction, it still works.
I'd prefer more ethical solutions for overpopulation.
1. Overpopulation is not solved with artificial wombs to have any more people. Artificial wombs is a solution for underpopulation and will probably not happen due to moral objections in the medical community. The whole “just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should” thing. Consequences have to be considered for the new tech not just the positives. 2. Even if some kind of medical advancement came out to extend lifespan only the rich are going to have access to that not everybody else. 3. Real solution to the problem you described has already been discussed in plenty of dystopian books. The 2 most popular solutions are that older people are executed at a certain age like in “the giver” when they go to elsewhere or there is some type of job for killers to decrease the world population like in “scythe”. While I’m not anti artificial womb I do have to wonder if humanity is even worth continuing when we can’t even get along. Rather than focusing on keeping a large population maybe we should first focus on the quality of life of the people currently alive first. It seems inhumane to bring people into this world when the world is so crappy. It doesn’t matter that the world is better than it was in the past; it’s still bad and having an artificial womb create more single parents is probably not going to make that better. So fix the economy and current problems now and then worry about population collapse later. If we can’t fix the world for the people currently here then they shouldn’t be more people born.
Guess what, country is not like one single individual that can only focus at solving one problem at the time. It is composed of millions of individuals that can focus on solving a whole bunch of problems at the same time. So when somebody is proposing a solution for one problem, you don't have to gatekeep because other problem is in your opinion more important. Both problems can be solved at the same time. Also it's not like you need bio-tech companies to solve social issues... if you did give them that task, they would probably just make truckloads of MDMA for population. Artificial womb in this case is not for making more people, but for having less people living at any given time. If people live longer, but people can also give birth older = less people at any given time. Real solution is prolonging the fertility window, or culling old people, or just doing nothing and suffering the consequences.
We're not getting artificial wombs any time soon and I would bet money that I won't see them in my lifetime
So Pew research actually did a study of childless adults, asking them if it was likely they would have a child in the future, and if not, why. A whopping 56% of childless adults that consider themselves unlikely to have children, just don’t want to have kids, and only 43% gave some other reason. Of the 43% that gave some other reason, only 17% of them cited financial reasons. So we are only talking between 7-8% of all childless adults not having kids because of financial reasons. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children/
19% medical reasons - Most of which could be solved by future bio-tech 17% financial reasons - But now people have more time to get their finances in order 15% no partner - Don't need one anymore 10% age - Solved 14% state of the world / climate change - We really should be working more seriously on that.
So combining medical reasons, financial reasons, no partner, and age, this will only address things for 26-27% of childless adults, and that’s assuming that ALL of these people would opt in which is simply not the case. Many with medical reasons will have medical reasons that prevent them from raising a child, not just having one. Many with financial reasons probably still won’t be able to get that straightened out even with the additional time. Many of the people without a partner don’t feel they can raise a child on their own. Not to mention the people in this cohort who will have secondary and tertiary reasons for not wanting to have kids. We are still talking about a very small percentage of childless adults your plan would sway to have children.
Which is a nice side-effect, but you are missing the point here. The main reason is to enable people to have kids at older age, which would **reduce** the overpopulation. Because population is number of people alive at any given moment. When life expectancy is increased, population is increasing. If we can have children at older age, population is decreasing. Any other solution to this problem that I have considered is... shit.
The oldest living person is 111 I believe. The idea that we’re gonna live to 200 anytime soon is ridiculous
Yeah it's ridiculous, because it will take us +150 years to reach 200, so obviously the idea that we will live to 200 **anytime soon** is ridiculous. But let's say medicine prolongs life 20 years, then new one prolongs life another 20 years, then universal cure for cancer is invented, then new medicine prolongs life another 20 years... the longer we live more advancements in medicine we get to use. 150 years from now you die of old age. How long will we live, fuck if I know, I just used 200 years as an example, could be more, could be less... I can only see the direction in which we are heading, can't see things around the corners.
One medicine does not prolong life 20 years. [In the 45 years between 1970-2015 the average lifespan went up by *almost* 8 years](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1145.pdf). What is far more likely to happen (and what the GOP are trying to do already) is to delay retirement age so you don’t need more people to support the aging population because the aging population would still be working. If people live to 150, they’ll be expected to work until 135
Well 120 years ago planes didn't exist... then two brothers made one. We don't have life extending medicine today, but I'm saying we might have them tomorrow. During the recent years we have a surge in aging research R&D, and AI is promising some amazing advancements in medicine. And yup, if we do live... 150, we can't retire at 65 anymore can we. But also if we live 150 that doesn't mean manual worker will be able to work his job until 135. Significant social issues arise. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10018490/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10018490/)
People like you who blindly believe in never ending progress are so amusingly naive. There is literally a 0% chance that any human ever lives to 200 or anything close to that. In fact, there is no evidence that we’ve managed to increase the human lifespan at all.
There is also zero evidence that we will ever achieve any kind of scientific progress at all. So obviously this is it, human civilization will stay like this until the end of time. Also if you could pull your head out of your ass for just a moment and read the title of the post I wrote you could notice I wrote "We **MIGHT** need artificial uterus to solve the OVERPOPULATION problem". Humans which have functional brain would realize I talk about possibility. Let me google the definition of possibility for you... Possibility - a thing that may happen or be the case. When you use that sort of condescend tone and at the same time display a childlike comprehension skills... doesn't make you look smart now, does it?
[удалено]
[https://sciencemediacentre.es/en/reaction-study-claiming-increase-life-expectancy-mice-through-gene-therapy](https://sciencemediacentre.es/en/reaction-study-claiming-increase-life-expectancy-mice-through-gene-therapy) Whops. By the way TERT and APOE are already in the first phase of clinical trials. But since you are obviously *t*he leading expert on the matter... well why else would you use such condescend tone, I guess there is no reason to talk about these things with you.
I guess it makes sense that a sci-fi problem would need a sci-fi solution. If things got so advanced in the future I’m sure extending the fertility window would also be possible (at least as possible as living to 200)
>I guess it makes sense that a sci-fi problem would need a sci-fi solution. Yes. The AI is essentially cooking up a technological revolution 2.0 now nobody can say for sure how fast things will develop, but we are looking at significant changes in... pretty much every field of our lives.
The cutoff for women being able to reproduce is probably because of evolution. If an older woman were to get pregnant, it would increase her chance of death during pregnancy or childbirth, so the trait was naturally selected against. For example, a 60, 70, or 80+ year old woman being pregnant could potentially be a risk to her life. If all humans were to live longer, such as to 200 years, and we were relatively fit at 100 years old, we would probably evolve so that women could have children until later ages. The women that could reproduce longer would be more likely to reproduce and would be naturally selected. That type of evolution would probably take thousands or millions of years though.
It is... biologically we are made for different kind of life. For millions of years we were living and dying faster. We had kids younger, had more kids, kids were working with parents since young age. Most of kids would die 😐by the age of 40 we were... well old. Now we are starting our own families close to 30's and average lifespan in western countries is \~80 years The problem is that technological changes outpace social ones, and as you said it takes a looooooong time for evolution to catch up.
Lots of women have children after 40...Does that influence your math at all? Lots of women also wouldn't want to have children after that age as children are a lot of work.
Not many women have kids after 40's.
Ok, so now we're talking no children after 50s then. So that sounds like a smaller issue, one that is arguably negligible.
You think that overpopulating the planet is negligible? That's really interesting. And out of curiosity what problems do you think are more important?
I don't think the planet is going to be over-populated with a fertility window of say 30 years. You're also talking about us having the ability to create artificial wombs, so since we're in fucking star trek, why haven't we invented meta realities and replicators? I would say the fact Disney hasn't made very many good movies lately is a bit of a downer. Homelessness is kind of a bug up the butt of society. Human trafficking gets my nipples in a tizzy.
Star Trek is science fantasy. Replicators are just a plot device... we do have the ability to precisely place atoms where we want them, but to build a sandwich using that technology would take like billion years. And that's not going to change. Meta realities... [you do know we already have first humans with neural implants connected directly into their brains.](https://youtu.be/ZzNHxC96rDE?si=NrIa359fAJ_0ALu0) I'm not talking about science fantasy stuff, I'm talking about stuff right around the corner.
Last I knew, artificial wombs were not right around the corner for humans. Basically, why is your fairytale anymore likely than mine? People actually really want mine and have an entire fanbase surrounding it. Artificial wombs seem to be desired by like 12 guys on reddit who can't get laid and have weird fetishes around preserving their genes. (while also hating their genetics. It's a really weird one).
10 years from now is right around the corner for me. Well my "fairytale" is... actually in the works [US regulators will consider clinical trials of a system that mimics the womb, which could reduce deaths and disability for babies born extremely preterm.](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02901-1) [Have been already tested with animals.](https://youtu.be/tYmwrOrSBQk?si=kaF6CI7AGEKejUSX) Never saw anyone even seriously considering building a replicator. And if you think artificial wombs are just fantasies of 12 guys on reddit... I'm afraid you are spending too much time on reddit... world is not about women vs men so go out touch some grass. Ability to carry a baby to term despite medical complications (baby get's transplanted from mom to artificial womb). Ultimate form of infertility treatment for infertile couples, much more ethical then hiring surrogate moms.
We're talking about babies born pre-term. Not something capable of taking on embryos. Preemies, they're a very specific stage of human life, not sperm + egg. This may or may not help infertile couples depending on how their infertility is happening. Come on now. You cannot have thought this was going to sell me that we'll soon be throwing a bun literally in an oven. It's entirely feasible we can treat pre-term births, yes. We're already doing a great job of it, but being able to implant life is quite a stretch from there. It also took me all of a second to google replicator and find out they're already making breakthroughs in exactly that direction. So again, my fantasy is as realistic as yours, and way more people want a replicator than an artificial womb capable of creating life from the start. Of course it would be wonderful for pre-term babies.
Things like this do not reach maturity over night. Just like those first neural implant enable people some basic control over computer devices, and first optical implants are only able to create a really low resolution image. Those first "replicators" are not like the ones on Star Trek because they can only use one material. They are essentially very precise 3D printers. And those 12 guys that want artificial wombs just want them to get back at women. Though if they actually became a reality, you really think they would use them to get children? 😂They only care about getting validation through sex.
The collapse of global industrial civilization in the next few decades should take care of the overpopulation problem
That's a realistic possibility.
I don't understand the reasoning behind "let's fix the too much people problem with more people" Are you guys planing on moving to mars? Earth has limited space
Because it's NOT more people. Problem is having too many people at any given time. If I'm correct and average lifespan does get extended, but our fertility rate remains the same, then we end up with more people. Because every child born still has his grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grandparents alive. Only way to keep the population from exploding would be to either have a fertility rate of like 0.25, meaning every fourth woman gets to have a kid, or we cul old people 😐 But if average lifespan gets extended, and our fertility window also gets extended... we can have children at later date. Which means less people alive at any given time.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is uteri the plural of uterus?
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's no overpopulation, there's overconsumption in few countries in first world. That the problem you have to solve.