If there was no death.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia

some facts:

29% of Earth's land, 60% of population

a whopping 89 people per square KM

so, comepare this to Toronto, a city nobody would claim is overpopulated (with any credibility). Its population density is: 866 people per square KM.

Toronto has 10 times the population density of Asia

Problems with poverty and lack of economic development in Asia are certainly made worse by large population centres, however, it is certainly not the case that Asia is "overpopulated"

Vast chunks of Asia are uninhabitable. Take the whole eastern expanse of Russia's Siberia. The Mongolian Desert is not sufficient for population centers. Western China is desert and only populated by nomadic peoples. We have billions of Asians living on the far eastern seaboard of China, the disease-infested jungles of Southeast Asia and on the islands in the Pacific Ocean.

Asia is a huge continent, but you have to take into account that it is overpopulated since large swaths of it cannot be lived on.

Originally posted by Moscow
Vast chunks of Asia are uninhabitable. Take the whole eastern expanse of Russia's Siberia. The Mongolian Desert is not sufficient for population centers. Western China is desert and only populated by nomadic peoples. We have billions of Asians living on the far eastern seaboard of China, the disease-infested jungles of Southeast Asia and on the islands in the Pacific Ocean.

Asia is a huge continent, but you have to take into account that it is overpopulated since large swaths of it cannot be lived on.

you are actually expanding my point

Asia as an entity is a total cultural construction, so it can't really be talked about as being "overpopulated" or not

but sure, lets talk about the cities. What you would describe as "overpopulation" I would describe as "underdevelopment due to weak top-down government power". We can quibble, but I really think, when it comes to things like this, overpopulation is, at best, describing a symptom, but is normally an empty term.

Any social problem can be construed as "overpopulation", as there would not be that problem if individuals were not "populated"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, how would we feed 13 billion people?

Not a problem people cannot die. Eating would be nothing but a pleasure activity.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What would we do with criminals? Sure we would not have murder, but rape, and other violent crimes would still be around. A life sentence is forever.

Tell people to suck it up when crime happens and shoot the worst ones into space.

Originally posted by Moscow
Vast chunks of Asia are uninhabitable. Take the whole eastern expanse of Russia's Siberia. The Mongolian Desert is not sufficient for population centers. Western China is desert and only populated by nomadic peoples. We have billions of Asians living on the far eastern seaboard of China, the disease-infested jungles of Southeast Asia and on the islands in the Pacific Ocean.

Asia is a huge continent, but you have to take into account that it is overpopulated since large swaths of it cannot be lived on.

But if we can't die, when why could we live in these uninhabitable places?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...Tell people to suck it up when crime happens and shoot the worst ones into space.

Wow! if they couldn't die, that would be very inhuman.

uninhabitable is also a development-relative idea

The irrigation project currently undertaken by the Lybian and other African nations is a good example of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Manmade_River

lets say there are no restrictions to babies being born.
and lets say if you dont eat you starve in great pain(turn skinny and deficiant looking and ugly) but do not die.
so i assume everyone would still eat.(dont try to get around this)
lets also say people are invincible(so you cant kill anyone)

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
lets say there are no restrictions to babies being born.
and lets say if you dont eat you starve in great pain(turn skinny and deficiant looking) but do not die.(so i assume everyone would still eat).
lets also say people are invincible(so you cant kill anyone)

Within a short time (like 100 years) it will be hell on Earth. However, colonizing other worlds would be greatly simplified.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wow! if they couldn't die, that would be very inhuman.

Which is why we would only punish the worst criminals. Besides that life would be a free-for-all of sadistic hedonism.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Within a short time (like 100 years) it will be hell on Earth. However, colonizing other worlds would be greatly simplified.

Indeed! My glorious vision of a bridge between Earth and Mars built of human bodies could one day be realized.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
so i assume everyone would still eat.(dont try to get around this)

so like, is your question: "how do we feed 13 billion people?"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is why we would only punish the worst criminals. Besides that life would be a free-for-all of sadistic hedonism.

Indeed! My glorious vision of a bridge between Earth and Mars built of human bodies could one day be realized.

Oh My! 😂 If you do a crime, you get put on the bridge for a time. 😂

is this assuming that these people are not only immortal, but impervious? i mean what would happen if you put one in an oven and disintegrated him? would swords and bullets bounce off of our bodies?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
lets say there are no restrictions to babies being born.
and lets say if you dont eat you starve in great pain(turn skinny and deficiant looking and ugly) but do not die.
so i assume everyone would still eat.(dont try to get around this)
lets also say people are invincible(so you cant kill anyone)

I can't really tell where you're going with this.

However, in these circumstances we would have to redesign the entire world. With the radically fast increase in population and presumed proportionate increase in food requirements we would have to devote a lot of space to multi-story hydroponic farms.

With everyone being unkillable war would be far more horrific (though S&M might be more fun).

Eventually desperation might force people to put the extremely elderly into medically induced comas. This will be fine since they'll be begging for death due to being trapped forever within their shriveled and useless bodies.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can't really tell where you're going with this.

i get the feeling that hes fishing for a specific answer...

Oh, I just remembered something. There's actually a specific "doubling time" equation.

Since about half as many people die each day as are born lack of death would increase the growth rate by 150%. The current world growth rate is 1.1%. So in your world the growth rate would be around 1.65%.

Using the doubling time table provided by Wikipedia the world population would roughly double every 40 years.

6.5billion today
13billion by 2050
26 billion by 2090

The world population would hit 1 trillion in 7.5 doubling times or in 2310.

That's assuming the current birth statistics would stay the same, which seems unlikely to me, for a couple of reasons. For example the doubling assumes that people want the same amount of children every 30 years, why would someone with already 4 children want another 4? Additionally why would they all want children as fast as possible, they are immortal, they got time for children later. Though I think your calculations at the moment still include deaths, no?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's assuming the current birth statistics would stay the same, which seems unlikely to me, for a couple of reasons. For example the doubling assumes that people want the same amount of children every 30 years, why would someone with already 4 children want another 4?

Good point. I have no idea how to represent that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Additionally why would they all want children as fast as possible, they are immortal, they got time for children later.

Women can't have kids for their entire lives.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though I think your calculations at the moment still include deaths, no?

I estimated that. But on second thought since the number of people born every day is something like 20 and about 8 die that means that the growth rate would double.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Women can't have kids for their entire lives.

Yeah, though would that be true if we could live forever?

lol, yes! the discussion of reproductive maturity and optimalization in a fictional population of biollogically immortal/invincible people 😉

[ha, its actually pretty interesting, I just thought it bore comment]

would it ever get to the point under these conditions that humans would cover every inch of the planet and no one would be able to move?