- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 19,723
- Reaction score
- 12,267
- Location
- Lawn Guyland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
It is for the foreseeable future, whereas significant life extension is possible in the foreseeable future.
No one says that, but people will. If they cared that much about the limitations of the planet, they'd have already stopped by now. We already have significant blight, drought, contamination, and starvation because of what we've done to the planet. There have already been human populations who have gone extinct due to destroying their own environment.
If people haven't learned already, they're not going to. So how do you propose we're going to suddenly see the light when people are living for 200 years?
The birth rate in much of the first world, including Europe, America and Asia is already below the replacement rate (roughly 2.1 births/woman) and it appears, at least on the surface, that birth rates start to decline as countries become more wealthy and women more educated, so I really don't see any reason to assume that radical increases in lifespan necessarily will lead to radically higher populations. Such treatments would naturally be confined, at least initially, to wealthy nations and when they were available to currently poorer nations it would most likely be at point where their incomes and education levels have risen and their birth rates have presumably declined.
Without a attendant increase in overall population the problems you cite still exist but they don't get any worse.