[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
AWoodside,

I LOVE the theory you speak of.

Indeed it is clearly the ideal I search for, but in the next 40 years? I think that is a stretch, not that I am phoo phooing it.

Also, what of birth rates under such a scheme?

[/ QUOTE ]

Realize that the state of medical technology will be very different 40 years from now. We do not have to reach the "Singularity" (many definitions of this term, for our purposes here I mean it as the point at which, barring extraordinary circumstances, you will be able to live indefinitely) in that time frame, but only increase your expected lifespan enough to make it to the next major medical breakthrough. There is already work being done in many areas in this field, notably the manipulation of telomeres, that has the potential to eliminate the "natural" aging process. Technological advancement has followed a strikingly exponential trend, and there is strong evidence that this will continue in the foreseeable future. Even if technological progress leveled of within the next decade, it would not be shocking if your life expectancy was 300+ years. That's a lot of time to make progress.

As for birth rates, I think this is a largely self-regulating phenomenon. People simply don't (by and large, of course there are exceptions) have children that they can't support. If you have the resources to support a child it is almost self evident that doing so will not contribute to "overpopulation" problems. Look at the majority of first world countries where birth/death rates have basically equalized. In poorer countries where birthrates/deathrates are very high it is often because the families cannot afford NOT to have children. Parents need as many as possible to lower their risk of ruin in old age, and to help with the subsistence farming or whatever it is they're doing. Population levels will find an equilibrium that reflects the current economic conditions, as they always have.