 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> I sure hope not. I'd like everybody to die before 100 if you don't mind.
My goodness. Why ever for?
--
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 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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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 long as it happens gradually (which I think is likely) I don't see the
problem. I also assume that if people live until 200, they will also be
perfectly ok to carry on working until they are well past 100 years old. As
is the situation now, jobs that require a lot of experience will be carried
out by people who are like 120 years old, and jobs that require young fit
energetic people will be done by people between 30 and 60. Maybe education
will even be adjusted to last longer? I mean if you are going to work for
100 years, you might as well have a few more years education at the
beginning.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:10:22 +0100, "scott" <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> I mean if you are going to work for
>100 years, you might as well have a few more years education at the
>beginning.
>
Not if it was at the school I went to :(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott 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 long as it happens gradually (which I think is likely) I don't see
> the problem. I also assume that if people live until 200, they will
> also be perfectly ok to carry on working until they are well past 100
> years old. As is the situation now, jobs that require a lot of
> experience will be carried out by people who are like 120 years old, and
> jobs that require young fit energetic people will be done by people
> between 30 and 60. Maybe education will even be adjusted to last
> longer? I mean if you are going to work for 100 years, you might as
> well have a few more years education at the beginning.
The problem is, people are often *alive* until the age of 80 or
something, but the period of time where they're able to do useful work
is still more or less what it was before.
How many 80 year old people do you know who can drive 400 miles per day,
every day, without killing somebody? They exist, but they're fairly rare...
PS. I feel old already! And I'm not 80 yet...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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?
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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:493954c4@news.povray.org...
> "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?
> 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?
Besides, what's "good" for the society is not always desirable. If it were,
we would be killing off the sick, infirm, handicapped, and generally
unproductive individuals *now*. The individual's motives are not, and should
not, be to maximize the benefit to the society at all costs. There's no
being as the "society", it's an emergent phenomenon. We all strive to
maximize our own happiness, and society emerges as a means to achieve that,
not as an end. Who cares if society settles in a less than perfect state, so
long as individuals increase their happiness? And I'd be happier having the
option to live to 800 or 8000 or 80,000 instead of 80, and I don't see many
people preferring to have that option not present.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:49395440$1@news.povray.org...
> The problem is, people are often *alive* until the age of 80 or
> something, but the period of time where they're able to do useful work
> is still more or less what it was before.
>
> How many 80 year old people do you know who can drive 400 miles per day,
> every day, without killing somebody? They exist, but they're fairly
rare...
>
> PS. I feel old already! And I'm not 80 yet...
Why do you assume lifespan increase would add extra years at the end?
Increasing lifespan would involve slowing down or even stopping aging (or,
more precisely, inducing regeneration). It's actually much more feasible
(relatively speaking) to extend present day 20-40 age period into 2000 years
than extend 80-90 years into 2000 years, for the simple reason that a frail
body would be orders of magnitude harder to keep alive for a longer period
than a robust one, and the battle is obviously already lost if you wait till
near deathbed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
lot, but the framework won't change much (with possibly a few
exceptions). After that you enter the rat race. Some will float to the
top because of quality but in many cases rats will fight to the top. In
quite a few cases the rats have the best change of winning when
everything is new. The beautiful thing with our current lifespan is that
that period will last at most 30 years or so. After that the baton is
handed to a new generation, often within the family (and else they won't
tolerate another one as their successor anyway). There is a big change
that the new generation is less of a rat, also because big rats are,
fortunately, rare and the next generation was raised in good
circumstances. What I fear will happen if the lifespan goes to 1000
years or more is that there will be a lot of rats at the top that have
all the time consolidating their power. Or dictators if you will. And I
don't think particularly on the level of countries (though 1000 years of
mugabe or mao zedong may not be nice) but also on the level of
universities and companies. I think that it is good if there is a
regular handing over of power just to keep the system stable. Of course
I don't know whether the optimal time lifespan in this respect is 70,
100 or 200. My gut feeling says that it is probably below 100. Feel free
to disagree. ;)
Note that nowhere I used my personal preference for a lifespan, as I
don't think that is relevant. Note two is that this is all without
taking into account that the relative periods of development can also
change. Again because I don't think that would differ that much.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
