[MikeUt]

> The dreaded issue of the 'biological clock' is where cryopreservation - or egg freezing - has completely changed the game.

Straight from the intro of Idiocracy.

And say you have your 1st child in your 40s. What about 2nd and 3rd? It takes 2.1 children per woman to sustain a population. How many 50 year old parents with a 5 year old running around will have the energy for a second child?

[dilanj]

As I point out, your biological ability to have children doesn't diminish. So I don't see why you can't have your 2 or 3 children. There are of course options like surrogates, and other more cutting edge tech enabled options.

And as for energy, the point is to commit to your fitness so that you'll be a very healthy and energetic 50 year old :)

[MikeUt]

I agree it's possible, but the developed world already has sub-replacement fertility. Each additional hurdle (freezing eggs, committing to fitness, avoiding other health issues, still having the desire for more children in your 50s, ...) filters away another significant fraction of the population, until what is left has no hope of replacement fertility, or even a manageably slow decline.

You'll hit a population cliff, with all the pain associated with that metaphor.

[dilanj]

You are absolutely correct. However as a individual decision maker your options are far limited. We should certainly think about economic incentives to address what you point out.

[raxxorrax]

This is indeed just idiotic. I mean it is good to have it if life doesn't go as planned, but for everyone else this is probably a bad decision. If you do it for your life style, chances are there aren't people wanting to have kids with you anyway.

Don't know, but it is probably also quite expensive.