Immortal Jellyfish DNA in Humans

[Athlete{UK}]

History shows as prosperity levels increase birth rates fall off. Aren't parts of Europe and Japan facing negative population growth (discounting immigration)?

History doesn't show this. Infact as most nations have experienced great prosperity birth rates have fluctuated and there is no concrete link to suggest that prosperity = improved or reduced birth. It does have a positive impact on mortality though.

Japan and Italy are strange because they have declining populations which is rare in the current world since just about every nation has expanding populations.

[zombie@computer]

History shows as prosperity levels increase birth rates fall off. Aren't parts of Europe and Japan facing negative population growth (discounting immigration)?

History doesn't show this. Infact as most nations have experienced great prosperity birth rates have fluctuated and there is no concrete link to suggest that prosperity = improved or reduced birth. It does have a positive impact on mortality though.

Japan and Italy are strange because they have declining populations which is rare in the current world since just about every nation has expanding populations.

actually, ive heard that too. seems reasonable tho, prosperity-> carreer->no time for kids. I know for one that if it wasnt for our immigrant friends, holland would go back in population simply because we make no children (while immigrant wives are giving birth like gattling guns)

[RobQ]

History shows as prosperity levels increase birth rates fall off.

History doesn't show this. Infact as most nations have experienced great prosperity birth rates have fluctuated and there is no concrete link to suggest that prosperity = improved or reduced birth.

I learned it in school, how could my great American education be wrong?

Seriously though, I can find lots of references to back me up:

http://www.economicsbulletin.uiuc.edu/2 ... 10001A.pdf

We apply the a nonparametric method of kernel regression on a dataset for 109 countries to estimate the income−−fertility nexus in demo−economic transition. The results suggest the existence of a critical level of per capita income above which fertility decreases exponentially with rising income.

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english ... beg_03.pdf

Today’s low-income countries still have the world’s highest birth rates (see Map 3.1), although women tend to have fewer children than before. The reasons for lower fertility are varied, but most are related to developing countries’ economic growth and development [...].

http://www.uwsp.edu/business/economicsw ... op_sum.htm

The modern growth regime is characterized by low birth rates and low death rates. Furthermore, fertility rates (number of births per woman in her lifetime) decline significantly. Technological change accelerates, and a negative correlation develops between income per capita and population growth. As the incomes of families rise, the numbers of children they have declines.[...]As stated above, world fertility rates have been declining dramatically for the last fifty years. From a high of 5.0 children per woman in 1950, the fertility rate has decreased by 44% to 2.8 children per woman in 1999. [...]Even more impressive is the decrease in the fertility rate for women in the high income countries of the world [...] to 1.6 which is well below the replacement level of 2.1. [...] fertility rates in all regions have fallen significantly, with Africa being the only remaining area with a very high childbearing rate. Some current fertility rates from a sample of countries are:
United States: 2.06
Italy: 1.18
Spain: 1.15
Ukraine: 1.26
Zambia: 5.62
China: 1.82
India: 3.11

[Athlete{UK}]

It's still not concrete proof. I mean the vast majority of nations have increasing populations at the moment. "most of Europe and Japan" is actually Italy and Japan like I said they are more isolated cases as it stands.

The difference between developed and developing nations is developed nations have an aging population. More and more of our population is old. In a developing nation the ratio is far more in favour of the young.

It's true that in a developed nation a lot more people are able to ignor the need for family and go for their careers. The problem with using this to backup a statement that t"his means that developed nations have declining populations" is that it's simply not conclusive and only reflects a percentage of a population. In every nation there is still a strong divide in the classes. The upper class an able to indulge in being DINKs (double income no kids) but the "lower" classes do not even then you would have to rely on the assumption that all upper classes would become DINKs. Also with all prosperity recessions to hit it isn't all sunshine and roses.

Thats why birthrates fluctuate and there is no conclusive evidence to suggest the developed world does have a declining population. I mean there have been huge population booms in developed countries since the industrial revolution. most notible is right after WW2. It's not a steady increase or decrease it's an ever changing thing.

[sdematt]

It called the study of population pyramids, and population cycle graphs. Stages 1-3 are developing (high birth rate, high death rate), 4 being a developed nation (Lower death rate and high brith rate, then birth rate starts to drop off) and stage 5 (more people are dying than being born)

Population pyramids are: early expanding = many children, few adults; expanding: many children, good amount of adults, few elderly; stable pyramid: a ratio of all, contracting: a glut of adults and elderly, but few young people

So yes, as the population moves through development, this is what happens. These graphs though are based on already developed/contracting nations. Developed: Canada Contracting: Austria, Japan

The way to keep a stable pyramid is only through immigration.

[sdematt]

Also theres a simple equation

Drive for food=drive for sex
No drive for food=less drive for sex.

Its also natures instinct. If there is less food, have more children so there's a better chance one will survive.
People in developed countries have less children, for the drive for food is not there.

[Mangopork]

Also theres a simple equation

Drive for food=drive for sex
No drive for food=less drive for sex.

Its also natures instinct. If there is less food, have more children so there's a better chance one will survive.
People in developed countries have less children, for the drive for food is not there.

The two drives are not linked, but they are part of the same instinctual system within the human brain.

You can be hungry but not horny, and vice versa.

Also, sexual urges are really a form of energy and can be dissipated or channelled into any activity, not just sex.

In fact, people with high sex drives who train themselves to use that energy tend to become enormously successful at anything they do.

Its called "sex transmutation" and its a human skill that's been known by the chinese for thousands of years, and for about the past 80 years here in the west.

[Mangopork]

I say...

Pro Immortality.

Against politicians becoming immortal. Can you say eternal slavery?

Also, i'm against using transhumanism as a means to acheive immortality.

Why?

Because science is imperfect. How many people would you need to butcher in order to perfect this?

Horrible.

I'm for dna research and nutritional means of acheiving immortality. I see all sorts of evidence and reasons that this could work.

[Mephasto]

"First, let us consider the fact that for the first time ever, as a species, immortality is in our reach."
PREPARE FOR COMBINE OCCUPATION

No seriously, Eaven if they would develop such thing that you cant die on aging i dont think they would want to give that ability to everyone, theres too many people on earth already if dying would stop that would be pretty bad thing as there would be too many people soon. or well i dont know.. most of them die on other causes than aging..

Human is natures biggest mistake truly :p

[Meotwister]

y'know thinkin about it... morbidly entertaining speculation of course, "immortality" like we're talking about or "a cure for aging" despite having to solve the problem of running out of space... you'd almost think murder rates would increase.. and I dont mean numbers because duh theres more people to be murdered and more murderers.. but I mean in a lot of political games surrounding tens maybe hundreds of thousands of people and more.. there are people that aren't very popular to others but instead of killing they let them die of natural causes... which would of course go unnoticed. Now they would be forced to put a hit on them, or make it look like an accident or something.

With humanity's luck.. we'd find a cure for aging and then we'd find out a black hole or a huge asteroid was coming straight for earth.

and also, if we didnt age.. what would we look like?

[Woe Kitten]

Well we'd pretty much like we'd age normally for the first 25-30 years of our lives and then we'd just stay like that.

[zombie@computer]

y'know thinkin about it... morbidly entertaining speculation of course, "immortality" like we're talking about or "a cure for aging" despite having to solve the problem of running out of space... you'd almost think murder rates would increase.. and I dont mean numbers because duh theres more people to be murdered and more murderers.. but I mean in a lot of political games surrounding tens maybe hundreds of thousands of people and more.. there are people that aren't very popular to others but instead of killing they let them die of natural causes... which would of course go unnoticed. Now they would be forced to put a hit on them, or make it look like an accident or something.

With humanity's luck.. we'd find a cure for aging and then we'd find out a black hole or a huge asteroid was coming straight for earth.

and also, if we didnt age.. what would we look like?

yea, come to think of it, i dont think theres anyone on this planet who has ever reached the max age of a man.. Everybody dies of diseases, accidents or detrimental living conditions, all of which have nothing to do with being immortal or not. Though we are nearing our max age due to our awesome civilisation, one could argue that increasing our max age will only set us back in the chance of dieing of diseases, accidents or detrimental living conditions. sucks, dunnit?

[theNotSoNinja]

living forever would just be like kicking the species in the balls, taking its mother out for a fine sea food dinner and never calling her again... as long as human populations can keep growing and then ideas like malthus and darwin's kick in: No food = no population growth = more competition (wars n shit) = super humans... Super humans might sound cool but more competition dosent, that kind of stuff brings down society, killing all the losers like us!- red eyed, pale skinned and disapointingly weak (you know who you are!). Imortality will just lead to the process happening faster.

[RobQ]

Estimated life span without aging is 700 to 1200, if you still face all the other risks that an average teenager faces.

Some FAQs answered in video form:
http://www.mfoundation.org/index.php?pagename=video_faq
Try:
Ethics-> If aging is cured won't this cause severe overpopulation?
Ethics-> Is technology ahead of our morals?
Therapies-> How much will therapies cost?

I think some people respond negatively to the idea of fighting aging, yet if you break it down into the smaller pieces like fighting cancer, curing Alzheimer's, reversing diabetes, no more heart disease, stopping macular degeneration, etc., everyone would say "of course". No one says "Cancer survival rates are up by 5 percent? That's good enough."

[Angry Beaver]

If one lived forever, then death itself would no longer be a certainty, would that devalue life because we have so much more of it? Then if Lifes vlaues is lost would not death become less of a big deal, but on the same token if people don't age there would be less death amking it a big deal. What would societies opions of age become when it was no longer a problem? Would the universe of Ut become a reality where people are drafted in to real life tournaments for their life because people normally wouldn't die enough?