On 06-Dec-08 5:19, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:493### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 05-Dec-08 17:50, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> Imagine what happens if people live for 200 years or more. How will
>>>> the society be organized. Who will be in charge do you think? What
>>>> will happen to creativity?
>>> So, when the lifespan went from some 25 years to 40 years, then 40 years
>>> to 70 years, society fell apart and became much worse for it because
>>> people in charge were generally older and all the creativity drained
>>> away, so nothing new has been invented in the last few hundred years?
>>>
>>> Yes, much better to kill you, before you become uncreative. :-)
> 
>> This was sort of my reasoning: first 12 years or so is basic training
>> then comes a period of puberty when you question everything. Then when
>> begin 20s your ideas have more or less formed. You will still learn a
> [...]
> 
> You are arguing that legs are designed to fit trousers. It's the other way
> around. 
I had thought about it if my position was based on the pitfall that it 
is how society is now and I simply am against change. In the end I have 
decided for a number of reasons that that is not the case. Feel free to 
disagree.
> Human lifespan and reproductive period dictates those years. If
> average lifespan is 500 years and people don't have kids until 250 or 300,
> they can afford to relax and/or study for 200 years instead of 12.

There is atm not much more to learn as basic skills that won't fit in 12 
or so. Tell some 14 yo now that he/she may be stuck in highschool for 
yet another 150 years and see how well that will be received.

IMHO the major part to extend would be the period at the end of puberty 
and just after, so after those 12. That is the most productive period in 
most scientists now. But even in a modern society not everybody is an 
Einstein and things still have to be produced. Luckily there is a large 
group of people that like to do that and don't want to spend time at a 
university. For them extending this period in life will be more of a 
burden(, picture everyone going through a puberty of 50 years).
Or do you want different lifespans for people depending on what role 
they perform in society?

One thing that would be highest on my list of things to change in 
growing up is that getting and raising children almost coincides with 
the most productive period in ones live. It would be better to postpone 
getting children to after 50 or so (in current measures). That could 
also be mostly solved by skipping a generation and getting the 
grandparents to raise the kids, which might be easier to achieve. Note 
that this is again very narrowmindedly seen from the perspective of the 
ruling/studying class.

> Stagnation is not an issue, any more than it is now. Only slowdown would be
> in natural biological evolution, but we are already meddling with it and if
> humans can achive extreme lifespans, natural evolution will have been
> rendered obsolete anyway.
> 
> One og the nice side effects would be increased cooperation. The longer
> prospect of living in a society, the less one's likely to engage in "get
> rich quick" schemes, screw their fellow humans, or build a bad reputation
> (check out repeated prisoner's dilemma). Unnecessary risks would be
> voluntarily reduced. Much longer term plans and mega engineering projects
> can be implemented instead of a series of 5-10 year plans.

That is a different scenario based on a very optimistic (and in my view 
unrealistic) view on mankind. It in no way invalidates mine. Of course I 
  though about positive effects, but my estimation is simply that at 
least for the coming millennia greed and egoistic behaviour would 
dominate society.
The main reason why your scenario is unrealistic is because it is based 
on the assumption that everybody thinks about what they do and how to 
optimize outcome. There are however people who are (biologically) unable 
to think through the consequences of what they do and don't care what it 
means to other people. So before extending the lifespan of mankind first 
find the empathy genes, test everyone who owns more than 100k$ starting 
at the top and prevent those that are unfit for the next society from 
reproducing. That group would contain a lot of bankers and captains of 
industry, so good luck in passing that bill.

Post a reply to this message