On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:09:11 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>Somewhere in my memory something is suggesting that it started in 
>Germany, but you may be right.
>

http://www.ssa.gov/history/age65.html

>> 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.
>

Who wants to retire when they have their health and enjoy their work?
I know I don't. I'm getting near retirement age but am exempt from it as I'm a
contract worker. In a couple of years I'd like to cut down working to 6 months a
year.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07-Dec-08 18:15, Darren New wrote:

> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html 

Thanks for that. Life was so busy that I still have nor finished all TED 
talks. It may take some time or perhaps it is a loosing battle. Is there 
a reading/watching escape velocity?
Anyway, a couple remarks:
- I saw the dictators in his slide but he did not take it and the other 
objections seriously. Apparently he does not want to think about what 
longevity means to a society.
- He is only talking about life extension. He totally neglects that it 
may be useful to think about changing the time course of (brain) 
development.
- I have the same feeling sometimes as when I watch a talk of a 
creationist. It only makes real sense if you believe in the implicit 
assumptions. In this case that it is bad that people die at a certain age.

Post a reply to this message

On 07-Dec-08 19:12, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:09:11 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> Somewhere in my memory something is suggesting that it started in 
>> Germany, but you may be right.
>>
> 
> http://www.ssa.gov/history/age65.html

Hm, my brain still seems to be working, must get older soon. ;)

>>> 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.
>>
> 
> Who wants to retire when they have their health and enjoy their work?

It was about dieing when you are healthy and enjoying work. I'd prefer 
that, yes. Retiring, I don't know. I have at least for a year projects 
that I can never finish before retirement because of intervening things. 
Some hobbies I'd also like to spend more time on (e.g. POV). But I know 
I could be running out of inspiration very soon when I am not seeing 
enough people.

> I know I don't. I'm getting near retirement age but am exempt from it as I'm a
> contract worker. In a couple of years I'd like to cut down working to 6 months a
> year.
Partial retirement could be an option, but I am afraid that that won't 
work for me.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> - I saw the dictators in his slide but he did not take it and the other 
> objections seriously. Apparently he does not want to think about what 
> longevity means to a society.

I don't know. Change seems to take one generation to happen. If you live 
1000 years, is it a problem that the dictators do too?  I don't know. Seems 
like you'd have more chances to overthrow them.

> - He is only talking about life extension. He totally neglects that it 
> may be useful to think about changing the time course of (brain) 
> development.

I think he's talking about what he thinks is realistic. He thinks we know 
how to slow aging. I don't think he thinks we know how to modify your brain 
yet.

> - I have the same feeling sometimes as when I watch a talk of a 
> creationist. It only makes real sense if you believe in the implicit 
> assumptions. In this case that it is bad that people die at a certain age.

Well, I think he was arguing that case, not assuming it. You may be 
unconvinced, of course.

-- 
   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 20:23, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> - I saw the dictators in his slide but he did not take it and the 
>> other objections seriously. Apparently he does not want to think about 
>> what longevity means to a society.
> 
> I don't know. Change seems to take one generation to happen. If you live 
> 1000 years, is it a problem that the dictators do too?  I don't know. 
> Seems like you'd have more chances to overthrow them.

It is more his general attitude that if people live longer everything 
will stay the same except for that. I think society will change. And 
then we are not even talking about who will live longer and who won't 
get treatment. His malaria example is a good one in that respect.

>> - He is only talking about life extension. He totally neglects that it 
>> may be useful to think about changing the time course of (brain) 
>> development.
> 
> I think he's talking about what he thinks is realistic. He thinks we 
> know how to slow aging. I don't think he thinks we know how to modify 
> your brain yet.

I think we may know about the same amount about both issues. Not a lot, 
but growing rapidly.

>> - I have the same feeling sometimes as when I watch a talk of a 
>> creationist. It only makes real sense if you believe in the implicit 
>> assumptions. In this case that it is bad that people die at a certain 
>> age.
> 
> Well, I think he was arguing that case, not assuming it. You may be 
> unconvinced, of course.

He was arguing from a conviction. It is like having a catholic 
theologian proving that god exist. Very convincing arguments, if you 
happen to believe in them.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> It is more his general attitude that if people live longer everything 
> will stay the same except for that. I think society will change.

Undoubtably. I just am not sure it'll change for better or worse. I'm 
thinking for better, for many of the reasons already explained here.

> then we are not even talking about who will live longer and who won't 
> get treatment. His malaria example is a good one in that respect.

Yep.

> I think we may know about the same amount about both issues. Not a lot, 
> but growing rapidly.

Hmmmm...  I've heard many people say we know most of what we need to know to 
figure out how to live longer.  I've heard very few serious scientists say 
anything about modifying your brain to change how you think.

> He was arguing from a conviction. 

Could be. He certainly didn't have what you'd call a balanced argument. :-)

-- 
   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 Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:23:11 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>Hm, my brain still seems to be working, 

>must get older soon. ;)

That's a privilege not a right ;)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07-Dec-08 21:00, Darren New wrote:

> 
>> I think we may know about the same amount about both issues. Not a 
>> lot, but growing rapidly.
> 
> Hmmmm...  I've heard many people say we know most of what we need to 
> know to figure out how to live longer.  I've heard very few serious 
> scientists say anything about modifying your brain to change how you think.
Not how you think but how you develop. We are doing quite a lot on 
embryology of the heart. No doubt other people are doing the same sort 
of experiments with the brain. You know, knocking a gene out here or 
there. Modifying a regulatory gene, to get it expressed in a certain 
part of the body or not. That sort of thing.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Not how you think but how you develop. We are doing quite a lot on 
> embryology of the heart. No doubt other people are doing the same sort 
> of experiments with the brain. 

Hmmmm.... Maybe. I think the difference is we know what the heart is 
supposed to look like, but not the brain.  You might be right, tho. Never 
heard anything like that, tho. They can tell something's wrong, but not how 
to fix it, as far as I know. :-)


-- 
   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

Kevin Wampler escreveu:
> 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.

I'm sure you know about it, but go to the Text link in that page. ;)

Post a reply to this message