fbpx
01 / 05
People Are the Ultimate Existential Resource

Blog Post | Population Growth

People Are the Ultimate Existential Resource

Even if technological advances help mitigate the problems with a shrinking population, young people are an irreplaceable existential resource.

Summary: The decline in global birth rates has shifted concerns from overpopulation to potential economic and existential crises. Economist Julian Simon posited that humans are the ultimate resource due to their abilities to solve scarcity problems, but it’s also their need for meaningful existence that drives societal progress. As birth rates fall, it’s crucial to recognize the profound role of family and social connections in providing purpose and motivating efforts that enhance human flourishing and ensure a better future for coming generations.


Birth rates dropping below replacement level in much of the world has become a growing concern. However, this is a relatively recent worry. For a long time, the rapid growth of the world’s population led many experts to fear the depletion of our natural resources and the potential collapse of civilization. The late economist Julian Simon did not share these overpopulation concerns. Instead, he argued that humans are the ultimate resource, proposing that more humans would actually help solve our scarcity problems. His reasoning was that more humans means more brain power, which in turn leads to more discoveries, creations, and innovations. This insight is crucial. As Marian Tupy and Gale Pooley detail in their excellent book, Superabundance, our species has demonstrated a remarkable ability to leverage our cognitive capacities to solve scarcity issues throughout history.

However, there is another crucial factor to consider when thinking about what makes humans the ultimate resource. The cognitive capacities that make us an intellectual species, combined with our distinctly human self-conscious emotions, also make us an existential species driven to find and maintain meaning in life. We don’t merely seek to survive; we want our lives to matter. We aspire to play a significant role in a meaningful cultural drama that transcends our individual existence. This deep-seated need for meaning is a fundamental aspect of the human experience, shaping our goals, decisions, and actions. Critically, our need for meaning plays a central role in individual and societal flourishing.

Meaning is more than a feeling; it is a self-regulatory and motivational resource. When we find meaning in life, it provides us with a compelling reason to get up each day and strive to do our best, even in the face of challenges and setbacks. Inevitably, we will encounter failures, make mistakes, and have moments of weakness when we act impulsively or allow bad habits and patterns of living to shift our attention away from the goals and actions that would make life more fulfilling. We may also let our character flaws derail us from time to time. However, when we perceive our lives as meaningful, we are more likely to believe that we have a strong reason to work harder at self-improvement, to course correct when needed, and to persistently pursue our potential while prioritizing what matters most to us. Indeed, research has shown that the more people view their lives as full of meaning, the more they tend to be physically and mentally healthy, goal focused, persistent, resilient, and successful in achieving their objectives.

Crucially, our need for meaning is inherently social. No matter what specific activity we are engaged in, we derive the greatest sense of meaning from it when we believe that it has a positive impact on the lives of others. 

Years ago, I was invited to give a presentation to professors on how to improve their public outreach efforts. During the Q&A session, a math professor expressed his doubts about the relevance of my presentation to his field. He said that it’s easy for me, as a psychologist, to engage the public because people are inherently interested in the topics psychologists study. However, he wondered how he could get people interested in hearing about math. He noted that most people find it boring. I asked him why he became a math professor. He responded that he finds the work intrinsically interesting and really enjoys sharing that passion with eager students. I then asked him why that matters – why is it important to mentor the next generation of mathematicians? He replied, “Because math is fundamental to the continuation of civilization.” As he said those words, I could see the realization dawn on him that my presentation was, in fact, applicable to his field. The central theme of my talk was that for academic scholars to succeed in public outreach, they need to be able to articulate the social significance of their work to non-experts. 

However, being able to identify the social significance of one’s work isn’t just about public outreach; it’s also crucial for one’s own ability to find personal fulfillment in their work. I believe that one of the reasons people lose passion for their work, even if they are highly successful, is that they don’t believe it makes a real difference in the world. Regardless of the nature of their work, whether paid or unpaid, people are most likely to derive meaning from it when they recognize its social significance. For instance, research shows that employees are more likely to find their work meaningful when they focus on how it positively impacts the lives of others, rather than on how it advances their own career goals. 

I’m emphasizing the social nature of meaning because it is essential to understanding why humans are the ultimate existential resource. The motivational power of meaning is derived from our connections with other humans and the impact we have on their lives. They are the existential resource that inspires us to tackle significant challenges and advance human progress, ensuring that future generations can enjoy a better life than we do today. 

In an article published earlier this week by USA Today, I discuss this issue in the context of the current birth rate decline, focusing on the special role that family plays in our search for meaning. Individuals can certainly live meaningful lives without having children or close family relationships. There are many paths to achieving social significance by making contributions through entrepreneurship, science, art, education, mentorship, leadership, service, and philanthropy. However, for the majority of people, family remains an essential component of a meaningful life, providing a deep sense of belonging and continuity that extends beyond one’s own existence.

Current conversations about the baby bust are largely dominated by concerns over the economic and policy challenges it presents. As our population ages, we may face worker shortages, increased strain on social safety net programs, and economic stagnation. While these challenges are very important and demand our attention, it is equally crucial that we do not overlook the profound personal and existential consequences of this demographic shift.

Even if you believe that advances in automation, artificial intelligence, or other technological innovations will help mitigate the problems caused by a shrinking population, it is crucial to recognize that young people are an irreplaceable existential resource. They are the reasons we care about the future, providing us with the opportunity to achieve a level of social significance that transcends our brief mortal lives. No machine can replace the profound sense of meaning that raising the next generation of humans provides.

While human intelligence makes the creative, innovative, and industrious activities that lead to abundance possible, it is the meaning in life we derive from mattering to others that gives us the fundamental reason to pursue these activities in the first place.

This article was published at Flourishing Friday on 6/7/2024.

Washington Post | Pregnancy & Birth

Robots Are Learning to Make Human Babies

“Over the past three years, babies have been conceived — and at least 20 of them have been born — through clinical trials that involve automation with little to no human intervention. The same algorithmic computer-vision software that helps autonomous vehicles spot objects on the road and finds signs of breast cancer in a mammogram can instantaneously detect the most robust swimmer among hundreds of thousands of flailing, corkscrewing sperm — each one a fraction of the width of a hair strand. It’s a capability that far exceeds any trained embryologist’s eye. A robotic arm can collect that sperm and mix the chemicals required for an egg to stay viable. And it can delicately and reproducibly fertilize an egg, initiating the moment of conception.

The most ambitious of these automation efforts is happening not in the tech capital of San Francisco, but in Mexico City, at a clinic in the upscale neighborhood of Polanco. There, infertile couples — most of whom live far away and couldn’t afford IVF anyway — are getting automated IVF free in exchange for putting their bodies and their hopes for a family in the robotic hands of an experimental system called Aura…

Investors are interested in these technologies for the same reasons the entire corporate world is racing to build AI: Automated systems, which combine robotic hardware and algorithmic software, don’t get tired. They see things the human eye can’t. They can, in theory, do the same work, or at least portions of it, far faster, more precisely and more reliably replicated than human beings can. That means improved results, lower costs and many more patients served.”

From Washington Post.

The Guardian | Pregnancy & Birth

Human Skin Cells Are Turned Into Eggs in Fertility Breakthrough

“Researchers have created human eggs from skin cells, potentially transforming IVF treatment for couples who have no other options.

The work is at an early stage but if scientists can perfect the process it would provide genetically related eggs for women who are infertile because of older age, illness or medical treatment. The same procedure could be used to make eggs for same-sex male couples.

‘The largest group of patients who might benefit would be women of advanced maternal age,’ said Prof Shoukhrat Mitalipov, who led the research at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland. ‘Another group are those who have been through chemotherapy because that can affect their ability to have viable eggs.'”

From The Guardian.

The Times of Central Asia | Pregnancy & Birth

Maternal and Infant Mortality Continues Decline in Kazakhstan

“Kazakhstan’s Health Minister Akmaral Alnazaraeva has announced further reductions in maternal and infant mortality rates, although some regions are showing a troubling reversal of the trend.

Speaking at a recent government meeting, Alnazaraeva attributed the improvements to the adoption of recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF. In 2024, maternal mortality declined by 12 percent to 10.1 deaths per 100,000 live births, while infant mortality dropped by 11 percent to 6.88 deaths per 1,000 live births. The positive trend continued into the first half of 2025, with maternal mortality falling by another 10 percent and infant mortality by 26 percent.

The minister noted that clinical protocols in obstetrics and pediatrics have been revised nationwide. Since June 2024, tariffs for obstetric and pediatric services, including childbirth, surgeries, and neonatal care, have been increased. These changes have improved access to expensive medications, reduced the debt burden of medical institutions, and helped attract qualified specialists to the sector.

The Health Ministry also highlighted the expanded role of air ambulance services, which have saved 96 percent of women in labor and their newborns in remote areas.”

From The Times of Central Asia.

Blog Post | Pregnancy & Birth

The Potential of Embryonic Screening

A new frontier in reproductive freedom rekindles old ethical questions.

Summary: New genetic screening technologies may soon allow parents to select embryos based on predicted risk for hundreds of diseases, potentially reducing the incidence of severe childhood conditions like Tay–Sachs and SMA I. This has sparked ethical debates about reproductive freedom, disability rights, and inequality. Philosopher Jessica Flanigan defends access to embryo information, arguing that ethical drawbacks don’t outweigh the benefits of empowering parents to promote well-being in future generations through genetic screening.


Starting with an inability to crawl, sit up, or turn over, infants with Tay–Sachs disease soon experience seizures, severe hearing loss, and paralysis—and can expect to live no more than five years before the neurons in their spinal cord and central nervous system give out.

Because of congenital heart defects and fatal respiratory problems, only 60 to 75 percent of infants born with Edwards syndrome live past the first week of life, and only 10 percent live past their first year. 

Without medical interventions, such as the $2 million gene therapy Zolgensma, infants with spinal muscular atrophy type 1 (SMA I) often die from respiratory failure within the first two years of life, making SMA I the most common genetic cause of death for infants. 

On June 4, 2025, Nucleus Genomics announced that it will offer preimplantation genetic disorder screening for in vitro fertilization embryos, which can predict 900 conditions, including genetic abnormalities and propensities for Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and various cancers. Although the accuracy of polygenic screening is contested, Nucleus’s founder, Kian Sadeghi, argues that prospective parents ought to be privy to what genetic variants will predispose their children to diseases.

For instance, although heart disease is in large part determined by one’s lifestyle choices, parents may prefer an embryo without a genetic predisposition for heart disease if they’ve lost loved ones to heart attacks and strokes. Thus, Nucleus’s screening, if accurate, would not only prevent tragic premature deaths from fatal genetic disorders but also increase potential well-being and longevity for individuals well into their adult lives. 

Nucleus Genomics plans to charge $5,999 for the service. As of July 2025, no other preimplantation screening of a similar scope is offered at a price that low—other companies’ prices often range from $15,000 to $20,000. Thus, there may be a future where extensive genetic prescreening is more affordable for couples undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Nucleus also intends to include prediction of physical characteristics such as height, hair color, and eye color for the given embryos.

What are we to think of this innovation? The philosopher Jessica Flanigan from the University of Richmond is finishing her book, The Ethics of Expecting, in which she argues that an important aspect of reproductive freedom is the freedom to access information on the embryos being implanted in your body. In an interview with Flanigan, I raised some common objections to embryonic screening. Here are her responses.  

Some bioethicists worry that selection based on certain traits in embryonic screening expresses to the world that people with certain traits are less valuable (“the expressivist objection”). This is particularly pertinent for members of disabled communities, such as people who are deaf or blind, traits that may be routinely selected against.

Flanigan acknowledges that one can feel hurt that some of their particular traits are not selected for by other people. However, this harm is not too different from the harm one may feel when selected against in dating.  

Furthermore, this harm does not oblige other people to select the traits the offended people have. Flanigan recognizes that the ableist discrimination some disabled people face is a serious injustice. “We should focus more on supporting existing disabled people, but this does not obligate us to create more disabled people so that the existing disabled people can feel supported,” says Flanigan.  She adds that when it comes to reproductive rights, “disabled people are not entitled to limit the freedom of nondisabled people.”

Some worry that even at Nucleus’s lower price, only the rich will be using embryonic screening, and thus their offspring will be even more advantaged compared with low-income children.

As Flanigan argues, the US health care market drives innovation for the whole world. Its market incentives encourage more companies to invest in research and development and in quickly producing new drugs and medical technologies. When these drugs and technologies are first introduced to the market, they are often available only to those who can afford them and thus necessarily create short-term health inequalities.

Once a technology or drug is publicly recognized as effective, however, insurers begin to cover that innovation, and the treatment becomes more widely available to the public. Even if these short-term inequalities do harm, it’s hard to justify restrictions given the potential for long-term equality. “You would never say we should have never made the computer because early on only rich people had access to computer processing and that wasn’t fair. Because now you can get a laptop on Amazon for $65,” Flanigan notes.

Furthermore, Flanigan argues that assisted reproduction at large can create greater social equality—for example, helping gay couples start families. Embryonic screening will also allow couples with genetic predispositions to severe diseases to ensure that their future children lead healthier lives than their ancestors.  

A compelling argument against advanced embryo selection of this kind is that the world would lose an important diversity of human experience if all embryos were selected for the most advantageous qualities. In Denmark, for instance, only 23 to 35 children per year were born with Down syndrome between 2004 and 2020 as a result of increases in prenatal screening, despite nearly all individuals with Down syndrome reporting high life satisfaction. 

This diversity concern, Flanigan thinks, is a bit overblown. “The human genome is incredibly rich and diverse.” We live in a gene pool with more and more people reproducing outside of their race, region, and ethnicity. Even if we all select the tallest out of a given set of embryos, Flanigan argues, this would not meaningfully diminish the genetic diversity and randomness of the human genome.

Importantly, “there are some kinds of diversity we don’t experience, and that’s great! Today, there is less variation in how many children die before they’re five.” If we can limit the diversity of infant suffering or painful genetic diseases, this would improve the well-being of future generations.

Perhaps some will decide that they would rather select for rather than against Down syndrome, knowing that their children may be happier. That selection, however, ought not to be decided by anyone besides those procreating. Flanigan predicts that many couples will reject the practice of embryo selection completely and thus there will still be “naturally” genetically diverse embryos. Whether or not you are convinced by these arguments, it is important to note that embryo selection is not the same as a “designer baby” or using genetic tailoring such as CRISPR to control for particular traits. The embryo a couple selects could possibly have been the one that was born naturally; it was one probability among many.

Even if couples were more inclined to pick embryos with particular physical traits, it is unclear that these preferences would be stable across time, as cultural norms and beauty standards shift. For instance, despite a stronger preference for males during China’s one-child policy, The Economist recently reported a preference shift for females among new parents. 

Nevertheless, IVF is still not widely used. It is characterized by high prices ($15,000 to $30,000 for each cycle) and invasive procedures, and we are far from a future where all soon-to-be parents select among embryos. But if preimplantation genetic disorder screenings for IVF do become common and accurate, future generations may be healthier than ever before.