We should probably consider that not having people die on a planet with
a population of (then) 15B is probably not a good idea. But having
healthy people is better than perpetually sick people. In addition to
eliminating the causes of genetic disease, other genetic flaws
will be eliminated as well. Like homosexuality, nearsightedness,
deafness, etc.

But we should consider whether we want to end genetic propensity toward
getting some cancers, etc, because it’s those diseases that help keep
the population explosion in-check, at least partially.

If the World can get down to a birthrate of around 2 per thousand (some
places, Africa for instance, have rates in the teens) then allowing
cures for all disease might be acceptable, we won’t need a disease-borne
attrition rate.

The planet can support 15 billion people – IF the people using stone-age
agricultural techniques are required to start doing things better.

GE can also get more YEILD from food crops … get ’em to grow in crappy,
salty soil too.

Actually, genetic engineering can make us more biologically efficient too
– more calories extracted from ever gram of food, more muscle energy from
every calorie burned. Ought to knock-back the impact figure a bit.

Also, people who don’t die – or at least can plan on living 500 or 1000
years – can adopt a more RELAXED lifestyle. You wouldn’t have to try and
squeeze everything into a short span. You wouldn’t need to produce 15
children every 20 years either in hopes that one or two might survive.

Also, in return for the aging fix, perhaps it would not be unreasonable to
demand a FECUNDITY fix as payment … greatly reducing (though not eliminating)
the rate at which it’s possible to reproduce. Two or three kids per century seems
acceptable … there will be losses due to accidents and such …..