Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: peb@tma1.eng.sun.com (Paul Baclaski) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Drexler on immortality, source of nano books. Message-ID: Date: 23 Mar 90 02:20:10 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 39 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , AMSA@cucisa.bitnet writes: > ...Therefore, the real obstacle is to change one innate > feature of every single living system's blueprint WITHOUT radically > changing the living system > [This is true of human (and other higher vertebrates) but not of lower > forms, at least not necessarily. It certainly isn't true of "all > living systems". There are theories to the effect that human cells > have a replication limit as a cancer defense, etc. > If E. Coli had a replication limit, the whole species wouldn't last > more than a few days... > --JoSH] Over-population would be a serious problem in a world where it was possible to repair cells and avoid the built-in lifetime. As intelligent organisms, a cultural mechanism could be used to prevent overpopulation. However, this is a political and economic problem, not a technical one. Paul E. Baclaski Sun Microsystems peb@sun.com [I beg to differ. Overpopulation is a function of the exponential nature of reproduction, and the mortality or immortality of the ancestors makes little difference. In a binary tree for example, all the ancestor nodes of a given level are fewer than the difference between that level and the next. Thus one would assume that immortality would correspond to pushing the calendar forward some fixed, constant period (given exponential population growth). Overpopulation WILL be a serious problem if the technology does not keep pulling rabbits out of a hat for us. But practical immortality will make little impact: it's the exponential nature of reproduction that does the damage. --JoSH]