Fergus Doherty <mbxfd at unicorn.nott.ac.uk> writes:
>Would it really be desirable to live for 3-400 years? This would lead to
>an increased population, perhaps even more so if it led to more children
>spread over a longer period (child bearing period for women would be
>greater if ageing slowed?). What effect of such older people would there
>be on innovation and social change, might not such a society be dangerously
>static?
Since the population is increasing at an exponential rate, immortality
only changes the population by a constant factor. Thus it doesn't change the
nature of the crisis, only the details. If immortality were prevented to
keep population under control, then that would be killing one person so
another person can have children.
The preceeding was taken (and altered slightly) from sci.cryonics FAQ,
para3-3.
