The first concern of pretty much anyone who’s first introduced to the idea of rejuvenating people is that we’d end up overpopulating the planet in the blink of an eye, and thus they conclude rejuvenation is a bad idea, regardless of all the arguments in its favour you can come up with.
This objection is particularly insidious, because a lot of people don’t really know how populations grow and are more than convinced we’re already critically overpopulated. Showing concern for overpopulation is somewhat fashionable: It shows you care for the environment and the future. It’s very easy to say ‘we’re too many’ and get a bunch of approving nods, and even more easy to intuitively conclude that rejuvenation would exacerbate the problem and is therefore a bad idea. Much more difficult is to delve into all the turns and twists of the argument to show that things aren’t quite like that. This is the reason why this article is so long—long enough that I decided it was best to split it into three sections.
Moral implications aims to rebut the overpopulation objection on ethical grounds.
Space, environment, resources, jobs discusses the logistics of population increase—if rejuvenation did cause a spike in population growth, would we be able to manage, and how?
Population dynamics deals with the technical details of population growth: How fast do populations grow? Can age-related death prevent overpopulation? Will rejuvenation cause massive overpopulation?
To ease your navigation, at the bottom of each article you’ll find a table like the one below. I wish you a safe journey into the overpopulation objection.
|The overpopulation objection|
|Moral implications||Space, environment, resources, jobs||Population dynamics|
|Overpopulation answered on LEAF (See also Lack of resources on LEAF)|
Objections to rejuvenation
Objections to living ‘forever’
All answers in short