 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] hotmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07-Dec-08 1:45, somebody wrote:
>
>> Not sure about the A but the GW could be global warming.
>
> Anthropogenic Global Warming.
never heard of that. Is that a common expression in some subpart of this
globe? Even to the effect that you can abbreviate it?
>>> 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.
Not at the moment because people have to transmit power if they die. ;)
OK it probably boils down to the observation that no one has ever ruled
for more than 50 years. Where you say that is because that is natural
and I say that is because people die.
> 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.
Given milennia in a *dynamic* society
>>>> 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?
Unfortunately I have seen it happen for more than 10 years and counting,
it really will only stop as soon as the person dies. BTW it works like
this: you know there is not enough money to fund all grand applications.
So there is a rule that you need, say, nine out of 10 from all
reviewers. As he is the main person in the field he gets to review the
grand. He writes a report that it is a very interesting idea and values
it at 8. In 4 years he has killed most of the competing groups and from
then on he can add for any group that wants to enter the field that it
is a very interesting idea but that the group unfortunately does not
have any experience in these techniques. And I do know a few other
tricks as well.
Other's may add there favorite way for a CEO or dictator to keep in power.
> I already mentioned that "get rich quick" schemes and screwing your fellow
> humans get more difficult with longer lifespans.
yes you claimed so and I said I don't believe it.
[]
>> 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.
Does not sound like a European way to formulate that. Anyway no poor
person has individually enough influence to change 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.
IIRC I already said that I don't know what the ideal age for a human is.
There is more than one way to look at it and each will probably result
in a different ideal age.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07-Dec-08 2:11, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
Somewhere in my memory something is suggesting that it started in
Germany, but you may be right.
> It's far from an ideal age for anything except saving tax money.
It is also (or should be, perhaps) about striking a balance between
those who work and those who don't. Here in the Netherlands they are
going to change the retirement age slowly. I think for me it would be
around 66. SO I am halfway in my professional life. 20 done 20 to go.
BTW as you probably have understood from our previous interactions, I
don't pretend to know what the right age for retirement is, nor the
right lifespan for that matter. I simply object to the simplistic view
that because (almost) everyone wants to life forever that would be the
ideal lifespan for everybody. I haven't seen any argument that would
change my mind that a maximum age around 100 would be better for the
society as a whole and the future of mankind. OTOH I don't think I have
convinced anybody of my POV. If I made anybody (re)think about how long
life might change the social interaction I am happy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 07-Dec-08 2:11, Darren New wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Somewhere in my memory something is suggesting that it started in
> Germany, but you may be right.
I'm almost certain the US social security system didn't start in Germany. ;-)
> going to change the retirement age slowly.
Yes. Bumping it up because there's too much money going out and not enough
money coming in. :-) My point is that the government setting retirement age
has little to do with how long you "should" work or when you "should"
retire, and much more to do with how much tax you should pay.
> that because (almost) everyone wants to life forever that would be the
> ideal lifespan for everybody.
No, naturally not. I think the outrage was more "what makes *you* the one to
decide" more than anything. Clearly, the age of 10 years old is too long a
life span for *some* people. Who is going to make the call that *that*
little girl should die for the good of others?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html
--
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 07-Dec-08 18:15, Darren New wrote:
> No, naturally not. I think the outrage was more "what makes *you* the
> one to decide" more than anything.
me, deciding? That'll be a first ;)
I just voiced my opinion on what I would like, that not deciding.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
