I might need a better title (It has now been updated), but here goes, anyway:

I've been considering this for a while now. Suppose we reach a point where we can live for centuries, maybe even millenia, then how do we balance? Even assuming we're as efficient as possible, there's a limit for how much resources we can have, meaning an artificial limit at the amount of people that could exist at any given moment even if we explore what we can of the galaxy and use any avaliable resource. There would have to be roughly the same rate of births and deaths in a stable population.

How would this be achieved? Somehow limiting lifespan, or children, assuming it's available to a majority? Or would this lead to a genespliced, technologically augmented and essentially immortal elite that the poor, unaugmented ones would have no chance of measuring up to? I'm sorry if this has already been considered, I'm very uneducated on the topic. If it has, could someone maybe link an analysis of the topic of lifespans and the like?

I don't think anyone here is perfect, though a lot here is simply brilliant logic. Though, as humans, we're automatically biased for or against something, at times for the wrong things and reasons. No bias at all isn't something we're equipped for, and to me sounds quite dull. Some things we have to believe, even as with our limited lifespan it would be very hard to learn everything.

Anyway, on to my actual point: How often do you realise you're biased for the wrong reasons, and you argue more for winning than being right? Also, what irrationality can you point out, and how to fight it? This could apply to you, or those around you, doesn't matter as no one's perfect. But as usual, we should try to at least be better.

Right now I'm trying to figure out how to best deal with unreasonable demands. A theological debate which eventually went "Well, if science can't do X, it is flawed, and we should accept that some questions are unanswerable.", and I'm working out the most efficient counter-argument (leaning towards "that's why we should try to see if it's impossible or not"). Anyway, share your thoughts on this, how to be efficiently rational, though if you try to help me, I'd like more questions instead of answers. I value the process of rationality more than straight-up answers, even though it's frustrating as it is.

Basically: Flaws you encounter and how to fight them efficiently, maybe [Bayesian Judo style](http://lesswrong.com/lw/i5/bayesian_judo/).