On 05-Dec-08 17:20, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:493### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 04-Dec-08 23:14, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
> 
>>>> I sure hope not. I'd like everybody to die before 100 if you don't
> mind.
> 
>>> My goodness. Why ever for?
> 
>> 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 average life span was something like 30 years, it was better than
> today?

I don;t think so

> The problem here seems not to be longevity or even immortality, but limited
> vision.
> 
> Who is in charge *now*? What's happening with creativity *now*? What's your
> thesis that 70-80 years is the ideal lifespan on these counts?
> 
see my answer to Darren.

Post a reply to this message

"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. 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.
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.

Post a reply to this message

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

"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

andrel wrote:
> There is atm not much more to learn as basic skills that won't fit in 12 
> or so. 

And, 100 years ago, there wasn't much more to learn as basic skills that 
won't fit in 4 or 5 years. And I'm pretty sure the chinese emperors and such 
got more training than 12 years or so.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

On 06-Dec-08 17:00, somebody wrote:
[snipped some reiteration]

>> (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? 
Not sure about the A but the GW could be global warming.
> 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.
It is obvious that it would be even harder to change anything, because 
everyone in charge had tens of years to dig in and in general disasters 
tend to not hit those in charge.

[snip]

>> 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. 

Good, because I was not talking about those. I was thinking of the 
professor that manages to make sure that no one else in his field gets 
money. About the slightly corrupt CEO that uses his power to keep 
competent people out of the board. About the man that owns enough media 
to control much of the information in a country. All not really 
pathological and all in possession of skills needed to build a 
company/research field but skills that will result in a lot of trouble 
for others if left unchecked for too long.

> 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)?

Nothing is wrong being wealthy AFAIAC. It is simply that new wealthy 
people often tend to have characteristics that are not beneficial for 
society in the long run. It is relatively OK if they stop working after 
65 and hand over to a new generation. Which was my point, I think.

Post a reply to this message

On 06-Dec-08 19:52, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> There is atm not much more to learn as basic skills that won't fit in 
>> 12 or so. 
> 
> And, 100 years ago, there wasn't much more to learn as basic skills that 
> won't fit in 4 or 5 years. 

I would think that often there was. As long as we are talking about 
craftsman and such. The timing of brain development has not much changed 
in these times.

> And I'm pretty sure the chinese emperors and 
> such got more training than 12 years or so.

yes, pretty sure. but that was probably not only basic skills.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:493### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 06-Dec-08 17:00, somebody wrote:

> >> (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?

> Not sure about the A but the GW could be global warming.

Anthropogenic Global Warming.

> > 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.

> It is obvious that it would be even harder to change anything, because
> everyone in charge had tens of years to dig in and in general disasters
> tend to not hit those in charge.

Doesn't make sense. "Those in charge" cannot be in charge for millenia
without any kind of accountability. You seem to be very stuck into a caste
system, them vs us attitude, black and white thinking.

If anything, a short lifespan supports the rich vs poor division. Except a
lucky few, it's extremely difficult for a poor man to transition to a rich
man within a few decades. Give millenia, and you'll get more homogeneity.
You can have people going from rich to poor and back again dozens of times
in a lifetime.

> >> 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.

> Good, because I was not talking about those. I was thinking of the
> professor that manages to make sure that no one else in his field gets
> money. About the slightly corrupt CEO that uses his power to keep
> competent people out of the board. About the man that owns enough media
> to control much of the information in a country. All not really
> pathological and all in possession of skills needed to build a
> company/research field but skills that will result in a lot of trouble
> for others if left unchecked for too long.

Good. Because small schemes like that may work for 5 years, but they sure
won't work for 50 or 500 or 5000. Do you really think it's feasible for a
professor to hoard a secret for that long or prevent others' grants? I
already mentioned that "get rich quick" schemes and screwing your fellow
humans get more difficult with longer lifespans. And frankly, if you have
thousands of years to live, you'll be less likely to resort to those even if
they were feasible. The returns are really not worth the effort.

> > 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)?

> Nothing is wrong being wealthy AFAIAC. It is simply that new wealthy
> people often tend to have characteristics that are not beneficial for
> society in the long run.

Much more than the wealthy, it's poor people who have characteristics that
are not beneficial to society.

> It is relatively OK if they stop working after
> 65 and hand over to a new generation. Which was my point, I think.

It would be a miracle if 65, which happens to be the present retirement age,
to be the optimum retirement age ever, under all possible circumstances.
Unless you have a very convincing argument that we are currently living the
ideal lifespan, based on generic principles that are not merely rehashings
of "is thus ought to" argument, I'm not buying it.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Invisible escreveu:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I prefer thinking long term:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_Universe
>>>
>>> There's no escape.
>>
>> Yeah, but we'll all be dead long before *that* becomes an issue. ;-)
> 
> Are you sure?  Did you ask Multivac? ;)

Apparently there'd insufficient data at this point to determine an answer.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> It would be a miracle if 65, which happens to be the present retirement age,

In the US social security system (which started paying out at age 65 when it 
first started), the age 65 was chosen as the age by which about half the 
people owed money would die.  It's far from an ideal age for anything except 
saving tax money.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message