Here, this will make you feel better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risks_to_civilization,_humans_and_planet_Earth

Post a reply to this message

yes, how did you know? ;)

Invisible escreveu:
> Here, this will make you feel better:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risks_to_civilization,_humans_and_planet_Earth

Oh, I prefer thinking long term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_Universe

There's no escape.

Well, you can always ask Multivac:
http://www.multivax.com/

;)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Here, this will make you feel better:
> 
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risks_to_civilization,_humans_and_planet_Earth

Aaaaa we're all gonna die! *runs around waving arms in the air*

Post a reply to this message

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. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Aaaaa we're all gonna die! *runs around waving arms in the air*

There are few things more certain in life.

And yet, when I point out this fact, people look at me all surprised...

Post a reply to this message

On 03-Dec-08 10:15, Invisible wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 
>> Aaaaa we're all gonna die! *runs around waving arms in the air*
> 
> There are few things more certain in life.
> 
> And yet, when I point out this fact, people look at me all surprised...

What I sometimes do is point out that there probably have been born less 
than 12 billion people in total. 6 of them are still alive, hence the 
statistical support for the idea that everybody dies is rather weak.

It is a nice examples to show that most people don't understand 
exponential growth. It also provides conclusive evidence that regression 
therapy is impossible and it limits the way reincarnation could work 
(animals must be involved).

And indeed most people look surprised.

Post a reply to this message

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? ;)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Aaaaa we're all gonna die! 

<Creepy Voice> Starting with you... </Creepy Voice>


-- 
   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

andrel wrote:

> What I sometimes do is point out that there probably have been born less 
> than 12 billion people in total. 6 of them are still alive, hence the 
> statistical support for the idea that everybody dies is rather weak.
> 
> It is a nice examples to show that most people don't understand 
> exponential growth.

Hmm. How the **** do people compute numbers like this? I mean, how can 
you *possibly* know how many people are alive right now? Obviously it's 
an estimate, but how do we tell if it's even remotely correct? It's not 
like you can *check* it!

I still like Warp's "grains of rice" example. (If only I could remember 
who the hell it was about...)

> And indeed most people look surprised.

Try this: Walk up to somebody, and quietly tell them "you're going to 
die". Watch the look on their face. Seriously, they act like this is 
*news* or something...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:02:06 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>Try this: Walk up to somebody, and quietly tell them "you're going to 
>die". Watch the look on their face. Seriously, they act like this is 
>*news* or something...

"You are going to die Ouch! Why did you hit me?"

It is a good idea to think before opening your mouth.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> "You are going to die Ouch! Why did you hit me?"
> 
> It is a good idea to think before opening your mouth.

Well *obviously* if somebody is likely to hit you, you shouldn't even be 
in the same building as them, never mind the same room...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:09:48 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> "You are going to die Ouch! Why did you hit me?"
>> 
>> It is a good idea to think before opening your mouth.
>
>Well *obviously* if somebody is likely to hit you, you shouldn't even be 
>in the same building as them, never mind the same room...

That's not the point. Don't you think that walking up to someone and saying "You
are going to die" is a little bit threatening?

"You are going to die"
"Yes, but not before you, bampot" WHACK!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Well *obviously* if somebody is likely to hit you, you shouldn't even be 
>> in the same building as them, never mind the same room...
> 
> That's not the point. Don't you think that walking up to someone and saying "You
> are going to die" is a little bit threatening?
> 
> "You are going to die"
> "Yes, but not before you, bampot" WHACK!

Have you *met* me? I'm about as threatening as a baby panda. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>>> Well *obviously* if somebody is likely to hit you, you shouldn't even 
>>> be in the same building as them, never mind the same room...
>>
>> That's not the point. Don't you think that walking up to someone and 
>> saying "You
>> are going to die" is a little bit threatening?
>>
>> "You are going to die"
>> "Yes, but not before you, bampot" WHACK!
> 
> Have you *met* me? I'm about as threatening as a baby panda. :-P

Yes, more likely they'll just LOL. :P

Post a reply to this message

>> Have you *met* me? I'm about as threatening as a baby panda. :-P
> 
> Yes, more likely they'll just LOL. :P

More typically, people do "...oh, it's just HIM" and carry on as they were.

The Trilby helps.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 03-Dec-08 21:02, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> What I sometimes do is point out that there probably have been born 
>> less than 12 billion people in total. 6 of them are still alive, hence 
>> the statistical support for the idea that everybody dies is rather weak.
>>
>> It is a nice examples to show that most people don't understand 
>> exponential growth.
> 
> Hmm. How the **** do people compute numbers like this?
You know approximately how many people lived in a certain age and how 
old they got. From then on it is a simple mathematical sum.

Say that we have 1000 people in year x and 1010 in year x+1. Assume also 
that the average age in year x is 50 (and ignore second order effects 
and wars) then 20 people will have died of that 1000 hence 30 were born 
that year. There is a lot of room for improvement, but something like 
that is the basic idea.

There is a table on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population. Why 
don't you write a program to compute it in Haskell? (my 12 billion was 
computed by someone else and I only checked that it was roughly in that 
order of magnitude. Would be nice to have an estimate and knowing how it 
was computed)

If you go back longer, you are less certain, but OTOH the number of 
people is so much less than are living now that it does not make much 
difference. Remember that homo sapiens has only lived for about 
2500-3000 generations. The tail backwards is not so long.

>  I mean, how can 
> you *possibly* know how many people are alive right now? Obviously it's 
> an estimate, but how do we tell if it's even remotely correct? It's not 
> like you can *check* it!
Oh yes you can. It is called a census. They have even done that in 
china, which is of course the major contributor. I am sure they also do 
that in the UK IIRC they also ask you for your religion and recognize it 
if enough people answer it. Resulting in klingon and jedi and some other 
strange ones to be official religions now.

> 
> I still like Warp's "grains of rice" example. (If only I could remember 
> who the hell it was about...)

Is that the one where you put one gain of rice in a corner of a 
chessboard and double it on the next square? until you have 2^63 at the 
last one?

>> And indeed most people look surprised.
> 
> Try this: Walk up to somebody, and quietly tell them "you're going to 
> die". Watch the look on their face. Seriously, they act like this is 
> *news* or something...

Most people know they are going to die (or at least assume so, see 
above). This line is mostly used in films and books meaning something 
like 'you are going to die very very soon and I don't mean that on a 
cosmic timescale'.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:37:14 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>>> Well *obviously* if somebody is likely to hit you, you shouldn't even be 
>>> in the same building as them, never mind the same room...
>> 
>> That's not the point. Don't you think that walking up to someone and saying "You
>> are going to die" is a little bit threatening?
>> 
>> "You are going to die"
>> "Yes, but not before you, bampot" WHACK!
>
>Have you *met* me? I'm about as threatening as a baby panda. :-P

Only in your own eyes. You are a big fit looking fella. I would think twice
about having a fight with you.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Hmm. How the **** do people compute numbers like this?
> You know approximately how many people lived in a certain age and how 
> old they got. From then on it is a simple mathematical sum.

Yeah. My problem is how you arrive at this crucial first step.

>>  I mean, how can you *possibly* know how many people are alive right 
>> now? Obviously it's an estimate, but how do we tell if it's even 
>> remotely correct? It's not like you can *check* it!

> Oh yes you can. It is called a census. They have even done that in 
> china, which is of course the major contributor. I am sure they also do 
> that in the UK IIRC they also ask you for your religion and recognize it 
> if enough people answer it. Resulting in klingon and jedi and some other 
> strange ones to be official religions now.

How can you be sure it's accurate? Maybe it says that there are 20,000 
people in city X, but actually only 50% of the population replied. (Or 
something.)

Sure, you have birth certificates and death certificates, but again, how 
do we know those cover *everybody*? (Surely it must be pretty 
comprehensive, but totally? Hmm.)

>> I still like Warp's "grains of rice" example. (If only I could 
>> remember who the hell it was about...)
> 
> Is that the one where you put one gain of rice in a corner of a 
> chessboard and double it on the next square? until you have 2^63 at the 
> last one?

Yeah, that one.

Apparently 2^63 grains of rice is more rice than has ever existed in all 
of Earth's history, or something absurd like that...

(Damn, I *wish* there was a way of reliably finding out numbers like that!)

>> Try this: Walk up to somebody, and quietly tell them "you're going to 
>> die". Watch the look on their face. Seriously, they act like this is 
>> *news* or something...
> 
> Most people know they are going to die (or at least assume so, see 
> above). This line is mostly used in films and books meaning something 
> like 'you are going to die very very soon and I don't mean that on a 
> cosmic timescale'.

Ah. So you mean, by telling somebody something you're assumed to be 
implying that it will happen in an unusual way? (E.g., "soon".)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Have you *met* me? I'm about as threatening as a baby panda. :-P
> 
> Only in your own eyes. You are a big fit looking fella. I would think twice
> about having a fight with you.

Heh. That's amusing... I've been in 3 fights in my entire life. If you 
can even call them that. And hell, I get breathless just walking up 
stairs. :-P

Still, you can see why I generally just don't talk to *anybody*. It's a 
reasonably good way to avoid being punched. Just for good measure, I try 
not to look people in the eye either...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 03-Dec-08 22:44, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Hmm. How the **** do people compute numbers like this?
>> You know approximately how many people lived in a certain age and how 
>> old they got. From then on it is a simple mathematical sum.
> 
> Yeah. My problem is how you arrive at this crucial first step.
> 
>>>  I mean, how can you *possibly* know how many people are alive right 
>>> now? Obviously it's an estimate, but how do we tell if it's even 
>>> remotely correct? It's not like you can *check* it!
> 
>> Oh yes you can. It is called a census. They have even done that in 
>> china, which is of course the major contributor. I am sure they also 
>> do that in the UK IIRC they also ask you for your religion and 
>> recognize it if enough people answer it. Resulting in klingon and jedi 
>> and some other strange ones to be official religions now.
> 
> How can you be sure it's accurate? Maybe it says that there are 20,000 
> people in city X, but actually only 50% of the population replied. (Or 
> something.)
> 
> Sure, you have birth certificates and death certificates, but again, how 
> do we know those cover *everybody*? (Surely it must be pretty 
> comprehensive, but totally? Hmm.)

People know they are not counting everyone so they also estimate how 
many they missed. I leave that one as an exercise to the reader.

>>> I still like Warp's "grains of rice" example. (If only I could 
>>> remember who the hell it was about...)
>>
>> Is that the one where you put one gain of rice in a corner of a 
>> chessboard and double it on the next square? until you have 2^63 at 
>> the last one?
> 
> Yeah, that one.

Then it is nor Warp's but slightly older, assuming that Warp is as old 
as he claims and not one of the secret millennium old persons.

> Apparently 2^63 grains of rice is more rice than has ever existed in all 
> of Earth's history, or something absurd like that...
> 
> (Damn, I *wish* there was a way of reliably finding out numbers like that!)

GIYF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem

>>> Try this: Walk up to somebody, and quietly tell them "you're going to 
>>> die". Watch the look on their face. Seriously, they act like this is 
>>> *news* or something...
>>
>> Most people know they are going to die (or at least assume so, see 
>> above). This line is mostly used in films and books meaning something 
>> like 'you are going to die very very soon and I don't mean that on a 
>> cosmic timescale'.
> 
> Ah. So you mean, by telling somebody something you're assumed to be 
> implying that it will happen in an unusual way? (E.g., "soon".)

In most cases, yes. In your case it may simple serve as a form of self 
mutilation by proxy.

Post a reply to this message

>> How can you be sure it's accurate? Maybe it says that there are 20,000 
>> people in city X, but actually only 50% of the population replied. (Or 
>> something.)
>>
>> Sure, you have birth certificates and death certificates, but again, 
>> how do we know those cover *everybody*? (Surely it must be pretty 
>> comprehensive, but totally? Hmm.)
> 
> People know they are not counting everyone so they also estimate how 
> many they missed. I leave that one as an exercise to the reader.

Hmm. Looks unsolvable...

>>>> I still like Warp's "grains of rice" example. (If only I could 
>>>> remember who the hell it was about...)
>>>
>>> Is that the one where you put one gain of rice in a corner of a 
>>> chessboard and double it on the next square? until you have 2^63 at 
>>> the last one?
>>
>> Yeah, that one.
> 
> Then it is nor Warp's but slightly older, assuming that Warp is as old 
> as he claims and not one of the secret millennium old persons.

Well no, but he mentioned it most recently. ;-)

(I actually read about it originally from Simon Singh...)

>> Ah. So you mean, by telling somebody something you're assumed to be 
>> implying that it will happen in an unusual way? (E.g., "soon".)
> 
> In most cases, yes. In your case it may simple serve as a form of self 
> mutilation by proxy.

You may have something there...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:47:26 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>Heh. That's amusing... I've been in 3 fights in my entire life. If you 
>can even call them that. And hell, I get breathless just walking up 
>stairs. :-P
>

Well I've only been in about 3 real ones myself and no one got hurt.

>Still, you can see why I generally just don't talk to *anybody*. It's a 
>reasonably good way to avoid being punched. Just for good measure, I try 
>not to look people in the eye either...

That can work both ways sometimes it is a good idea.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03-Dec-08 23:02, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> How can you be sure it's accurate? Maybe it says that there are 
>>> 20,000 people in city X, but actually only 50% of the population 
>>> replied. (Or something.)
>>>
>>> Sure, you have birth certificates and death certificates, but again, 
>>> how do we know those cover *everybody*? (Surely it must be pretty 
>>> comprehensive, but totally? Hmm.)
>>
>> People know they are not counting everyone so they also estimate how 
>> many they missed. I leave that one as an exercise to the reader.
> 
> Hmm. Looks unsolvable...

Think again. Does the police know what houses are used by illegal 
immigrants? Do they know how many people live in such houses? Did they 
raid some of them before? Do kids go to school? Do illegal immigrants 
sometimes go to see a doctor? Do they work? Are shops and workplaces 
sometimes checked if everybody is legal? Do they have accounts at the banks?
There are numerous occasions where you can find out something about 
illegal people not who they are but at least how many.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> There are numerous occasions where you can find out something about 
> illegal people not who they are but at least how many.

Plus, you can do something like mail out the forms to ten cities, then go 
door to do through one entire city asking explicitly, and see what the 
difference is and multiply by ten.  I.e., you can take a small sample to 
estimate how many people don't answer.

-- 
   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

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:493### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 03-Dec-08 10:15, Invisible wrote:
> > Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> >
> >> Aaaaa we're all gonna die! *runs around waving arms in the air*
> >
> > There are few things more certain in life.
> >
> > And yet, when I point out this fact, people look at me all surprised...

> What I sometimes do is point out that there probably have been born less
> than 12 billion people in total.

I think the "accepted" figure is about 5 times as many, not that it makes
much difference.

> 6 of them are still alive, hence the
> statistical support for the idea that everybody dies is rather weak.

Look at it another way: So far, there are billions for, none against, the
argument that humans don't live beyond, say, 130. It all depends on how you
define death.

One can also make statistical arguments for the doomsday scenario based on
the principle that our particular existence not likely to be particularly
significant along the human timeline.

But that might even be an argument for immortality instead of doomsday (if
there are to live only 120 billion total humans, last 60 practically
immortal, we again end up in the middle).

Then again, that argument leads to a "suprise exam" type paradox: Principle
of mediocrity implies that no generation will ever believe they can possibly
be the last human generation.

FWIW, I tend to believe near-immortality will be achieved within, say, 200
years. In that respect, we would be an extremely unluckly generation.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Hmm. How the **** do people compute numbers like this? I mean, how can
> you *possibly* know how many people are alive right now? Obviously it's
> an estimate, but how do we tell if it's even remotely correct? It's not
> like you can *check* it!

That is relatively easy to figure out. Add up census results.

Countries without a census are probably small enough not to matter too much;
and otherwise there are still other ways to measure how many people are in
a country.

What I can't figure out is how the **** people know how many humans were
born in the whole history of the planet.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> What I can't figure out is how the **** people know how many humans were
> born in the whole history of the planet.

Because people have been taking census for longer than the fundamentalists 
think the world has existed. It's not all *that* hard to extrapolate 
population growth, if it's relatively smooth for the last, oh, eight 
thousand 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

Darren New wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> What I can't figure out is how the **** people know how many humans were
>> born in the whole history of the planet.
> 
> Because people have been taking census for longer than the 
> fundamentalists think the world has existed. It's not all *that* hard to 
> extrapolate population growth, if it's relatively smooth for the last, 
> oh, eight thousand years or so.

Oddly enough, we apparently have records of the price of cotton going 
back several millennia. o_O

PS. It's fractal.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Oddly enough, we apparently have records of the price of cotton going 
> back several millennia. o_O

Yeah, oddly enough, they have lists of who went to which gala parties, and 
the price of cotton, but nobody ever wrote down that the sun stopped in the 
sky, or that thousands of people died on the same day, or etc. :-) Funny how 
that works out.

-- 
   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 03-Dec-08 23:59, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:493### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 03-Dec-08 10:15, Invisible wrote:
>>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aaaaa we're all gonna die! *runs around waving arms in the air*
>>> There are few things more certain in life.
>>>
>>> And yet, when I point out this fact, people look at me all surprised...
> 
>> What I sometimes do is point out that there probably have been born less
>> than 12 billion people in total.
> 
> I think the "accepted" figure is about 5 times as many, not that it makes
> much difference.
I vaguely remember also seeing some larger number, but I don't know 
where. Nor what is the 'accepted' figure and by who? My estimate would 
be that 60 billion is much too large perhaps unless you count every 
humanoid for the last 5 million years and not homo sapiens for the last 
50000. Anyway one more reason for Andy to start working, I'd say.

> 
>> 6 of them are still alive, hence the
>> statistical support for the idea that everybody dies is rather weak.
> 
> Look at it another way: So far, there are billions for, none against,  the
> argument that humans don't live beyond, say, 130.

That suspiciously looks like an argument that because in the US no brick 
buildings exist that are older than 200 years brick building can not be 
older than 200 years. ;) Or 3 millennia if you include the rest of the 
world.
You can never rule out someone like Wowbagger, the infinitely prolonged, 
is among us or will be next century.

> It all depends on how you define death.

> 
> One can also make statistical arguments for the doomsday scenario based on
> the principle that our particular existence not likely to be particularly
> significant along the human timeline.

statistical <-> not likely?

> But that might even be an argument for immortality instead of doomsday (if
> there are to live only 120 billion total humans, last 60 practically
> immortal, we again end up in the middle).
> 
> Then again, that argument leads to a "suprise exam" type paradox: Principle
> of mediocrity implies that no generation will ever believe they can possibly
> be the last human generation.
> 
> FWIW, I tend to believe near-immortality will be achieved within, say, 200
> years. In that respect, we would be an extremely unluckly generation.

I sure hope not. I'd like everybody to die before 100 if you don't mind.

Post a reply to this message

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] scottcom> 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

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