The Speculist

I was going to leave a comment on Stephen's recent musings on life extension and population levels -- specifically on whether, as Randall Parker suggests, steps may need to be taken to inhibit the reproductive instinct in the long-lived in order to prevent a popuklation crisis -- but my comments grew into a blog entry of their own. So here we go.

Even before vast numbers of us become fully digitized and cease to be the kind of drain we are on resources in our MOSH state, people will find that technology provides alternatives to reproduction. Today, increasing numbers of singles (and couples) who don't have children have begun to view their pets as their "kids." Pets are in some ways a poor substitute for children. This year I got to watch my daughter lead her school's marching band onto the field as drum major; I doubt my shih tzus will ever provide a comparable moment. And of course, that's just one of hundreds of moments over the years from infant to high school senior, with plenty more to come. There's a huge difference between kids and pets.

But pets can cover some of the same emotional ground as children. They provide company, they depend upon us, they give affection. Plus, I can go on business trips with a lot less guilt leaving two dogs behind than I would leaving two children. And if my wife and I decide we want to go away for the weekend -- boom! Into the kennel with them. Again, totally guilt-free (for me, anyhow, although my wife makes me call the kennel every day we're gone to make sure they're doing all right.)

So pets are like "kids light" -- some of the benefits, a lot less effort. The modern world provides lots of interesting diversions outside of family life, and there is no requirement to have children in order to take care of us when we're old. So why have kids? Some have decided there's no particular reason why they should, especially when they have pets to fill in some of that emotional void that not having children can present.

But hold on. Here comes something potentially even better than pets. Virtual kids. (There are already virtual pets; virtual kids will be here before we know it.) Current technology would easily support "fantasy" kids, something along the lines of fantasy football. You and your partner could chose your child's sex, eye color, hair color, etc. Give the child a name. Go through potty training. Get report cards. Unlike a pet, this "kid" could be the drum major, or the quarterback, or the National Merit Scholar -- all virtual, of course. Eventually you might have virtual grandkids!

Could that catch on? I'm not sure. I don't see how it would fill the emotional void the way pets do. But let's take the technology a step or two further. How about AI-driven virtual kids. Computer programs so sophisticated that they could past some kind of parental Turing test. How about a virtual kid with whom you can converse, and who draws pictures that you can print out and hang on your fridge?

Once there are virtual children that we can talk to, teach, play with and -- through better and better virtual worlds technologies -- see and touch, the desire to have real children will decrease all the more. This is part of the greater challenge that this kind of technology will present to all human relationships. Virtual friends, lovers, parents, and children will be more reliable and less work than their real-world counterparts.

For now, let's skip one of the more alarming questions that underpins this scenario and assume that these virtual people are not true sentient beings -- they are just very sophisticated bits of software that can convince us that they're real. But for this discussion, they aren't conscious and so we don't have to concern oursleves with their rights. If economic and technological development continue, right around the point where people in the developing world being to slow down their reproduction in favor of more affluent lifestyles (and perhaps a new enthusiasm for pets) large swaths of the population in the West may begin to drop out of human society altogether.

But who knows. They may decide to check back in and start reproducing again at some point. Or they might go fully digital and never be heard from again. In any case, as these changes unfold, I doubt that population levels will ever be the major concern.