Since Christmass is coming, I want to remind of my Christmass idea here:
>>8387

And now…
An even better casual guro setting idea
=no, I would even say…=
An ultimate casual guro setting idea
So remember that one?
>>14974
I've come up with another good idea (which can totally work together with Dyson swarm or separately). So, if it's sci-fi future, what else there is beside colonizing space? Or course, life extension (on which the channel I mentioned in the previous post also has a nice video). And how does it help? Well, if people live for a 1000 years, any death within first 20 years is no different from infant death. What's another 20 years to replace them when you live a 1000 years?

Now, say you live a 1000 years and give birth every 10 years, that results in roughly 100 children. Of them, you really only need 2 to survive to replace the parents and keep the population. If 10 out of 100 survive, that's already a rapid population growth, requiring the Dyson Swarm from the idea above to settle all the new people.

But also if you have such a swarm, you have a post-scarcity economy, you don't have to worry about resources wasted for having all the 100 children attending schools even if only 2-10 of them survive. You see, there are two approaches to raising kids in nature: quantity over quality (making lots of children and hoping a few survive) and quality over quantity (making few children, but spending all of your resources on raising them well). What makes the second approach work better and result in humans is because the overall resources are limited, so it works better to concentrate more of them on fewer children. But! If the resources are practically infinite, there remains no reason for such an approach. You can raise 2 children and 100 children equally well, so why not make 100. Then 90 of them die and only 10 remain? That's just great, because that's 5 times more then 2! And each of those 5, with all the future technology and unlimited resources, is better raised and educated than todays' 2.

At that point children up to 20 and possibly even young adults under 100 killing themselves / each other is just a fun childrens' game. When 90 out of 100 children die, you would take each death as granted, it's when one survives to adulthood that is a pleasant surprise. By extension, you also wouldn't mind your children making more children. Inbreeding isn't a problem either, when most of the inbred children would just die.
The main problem with all the casual death settings is that the world wouldn't work that way, but in this setting it totally would. You can have 90 of 100 people die before the age of 20 and the world would still work totally fine. Even better, in any given moment, if you don't know people in this world can live 1000 years, it would look just like our world, where for some reason people don't care about death. Because, see: if you give birth every 10 years and kids live up to 10 years on average (dying anywhere from 0 to 20), at any given moment an average family would have 1 child. So you might even want to increase the numbers to give birth every 5 years or so, so that average family has 2 children at a given moment, so you can have stories with siblings (or just imagine for every family with 2 children there's one without children that was left outside the scope of the story).

Which leads to the idea that you can take any story that looks like it is set in our world with only difference that nobody cared about death, and that attitude is not explained in the story (so like Lord of Pancakes' or Rosie's stories, or mine for that matter) and it makes you unable to enjoy it because it is unrealistic… well now just imagine it is actually set in this setting! The story says there's a 30 year old mother with a 10 year old child? Well, maybe she just looks 30, but really is 300 and this is her 30th child. Or maybe she really is 30 but doesn't care about the child's death because she knows she'll have 100 more children and 90 of them will die anyway.

I'm talking about children, but of course the same idea can mostly work for adults too, just instead of 90% dying before the age of 20 it can be before the age 100. Or even more evenly across all of the lifespan. And everyone is educated to be able to do each others' job, so the can replace each other easily when someone dies. And most of the real job is done by robots anyway, people are either scientists who are beyond the scope of most stories or work in service industry where you don't even need much of special education for them to easily replace each other.

Of course, all the numbers are totally random and average (so it doesn't mean you actually give birth on every tenth year, just so that you birth a total of 100 children over 1000 years… and of course it can be 143 children and 1623 years or whatever). You can also scale it down to have more children survive into adulthood (say you give birth to 20 children over 150 years and only 5 of them die) or up unlimitedly (you birth infinite children over an infinite lifespan until you decide to kill yourself out of boredom some gozillion years later).

Damn, the more I think about this idea, the more I like it. It seems to have no flaws, or has it?