169 SUPERLONGEVITY WITHOUT OVERPOPULATION Max More, Ph.D. Proponents of superlongevity (indefinitely extended life spans) have been making their case for the possibility and desirability of this change in the human condition for decades. For just as long, those hearing the arguments for superlongevity have deployed  two  or  three  unchanging,  unrelenting  responses. The question: “But what would we do with all that time?” is one of them. Another is the “But death is natural!” gambit. The final predictable response is to conjure up the specter of overpopulation. Despite strong downward trends in popula- tion growth since this issue gained visibility in the 1960’s, the third concern remains an impediment. Paul  Ehrlich’s  1968  bestseller,  The  Population  Bomb  [1], ignited a trend in which alarmists routinely ignored data and reasonable projections to scare the public. Those of us who see achieving the indefinite extension of the human life span as a central goal naturally find this behavior quite irritating. If  baseless  fear  wins  out,  we  will  gain  little  from  our  per- sonal  programs  of  exercise,  nutrition,  or  supplementation. Widespread  fear  leads  to  restrictive  legislation  –  legislation that in this case could be deadly. Although the volume has been turned down a little on the population issue, it continues