(no subject)

[vyvyanx]

I forgot to mention that after my golem/Gollum pseudopoll, some anonymous kind person bestowed a paid account upon me. I take this as an encouragement to post more polls! - so here is one on an issue I remember discussing with some people on Usenet several years ago:

[Poll #331385]
Update To clarify, you can't decide to have children first and take the drug later - assume that the government won't give the drug to anyone who has children, or that the drug won't actually work if you've have children. If you answered "Something else" for some different reason, please let me know in a comment what the reason is!

No offence is intended by this poll towards anyone who has, is about to have or wants to have children - it's just idle curiosity about whether people would rather have personal immortality or children (sometimes described as providing a form of immortality through genetic/cultural transmission).

Comments

[teleute.livejournal.com]

I was assuming there would be religious or cultural objections sufficient that many of the world's population wouldn't take the drug (either by choice, or it wouldn't be allowed). I also assumed a financial issue, such that the world's poor wouldn't be able to afford it. In either of these scenarios there wouldn likely still be children available to adopt, although probably not of my culture/race (although I don't think that is an impediment to adoption).

I have never thought that genetic immortality was important. Married to anyone other than Adrian (who has a problem with adoption) I would be adopting rather than having my own children. Immortality would merely allow me the chance to raise more!