I am sitting here minding my own business, trying to unwind and reading a book report in the latest ‘Humanist’ magazine. It is titled: A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution’ otherwise known as CRISPR technology. An issue was covered that I have been pondering for years and now I can say something (there goes my peace and quiet). I am writing the magazine with this question: suppose we were to reach a point we could guarantee a person living 100+, problem free lives. Then, because of the issue of our numbers/impact on the planet (which are real) rules were added to limit the progeny of those using the technology. Longer lives could easily mean more of us and our impact. 15,000+ scientist have just issued a dire warning based squarely on our impact. It is not just about fertility rates but those of longer life’s (people like myself) as well. If we were to limit the number of offspring what would that do to the generational spectrum? I see this conundrum part of the comfortable means versus the moral ends problem in the existential risk studies now being studied by some major universities (Oxford for one). If you were given the choice of a guaranteed, much longer lifespan with the caveat of having fewer or none children what would you do?