"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:493### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 06-Dec-08 5:19, somebody wrote:
> > "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message

> > 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.

A couple of centuries ago, even a 5 year education was deemed unnecessary
and burdensome for the general populace. Preschool practically did not exist
a couple of decades ago. We have at least tripled the average time spent in
school just like that, without a relative significant extension in lifespan,
so that schooling years eat into our lives. And yet, we manage. Now imagine
extending the lifespan, and the technological advances.

Students have always complained about school, as have workers about
workplace. Dilbert is hardly fiction. Don't think that proves anything at
all.

> 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.

> > 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

Not at all. I assume the worst in people. However, when the prospect of
coexistance is extended, people tend to cooperate more and behave in a more
"civilized" manner. That's been shown in numerous studies and follows from
everytday experience. Vendors rip of tourists but not locals.

>(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.

Selfishness is necessary and fine. But selfishness need not contradict
cooperation, in fact, we cooperate out of selfishness. Extension of lifespan
better aligns selfishness with needs of society. Are you an AGW proponent,
for instance? In that case, it should be obvious that had we have lifespans
of couple of centuries or millenia, we'd be doing a lot more about the
issue.

> 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.

It works on the gross scale, even if individuals do not consciously think of
such things. Each goose doesn't deliberately and precisely compute their
trajectories to stay in formation. It's an emergent pattern dictated by
constraints and realities.

And people are not totally dumb. All but a few amongs us worry about
retirement and plan ahead. People worry about paying off their debts, kids'
school expenses... etc. They may not always succeed to make good plans, but
they still try to optimize their lives.

> 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.

There will always be pathalogical cases. There will be religious nuts who
don't care about their or others' lives. That's not a relevant argument. We
live with those people with a life span of 80, and next generations can also
live with them with an age span of 800.

> 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.

What's wrong with being wealthy (and 100k$ is a pitifully small amount for
any such consideration anyway)?

Post a reply to this message