4 ms·

Feel free to explain because I don't see what would be the problem.

balls187 10y ago
Looking at the US, our society is based on working from 18 till about 65-67. Your plan for "retirement" includes living from ~67-85 on a fixed income. That income is a combination of (ideally) retirement income, and social security, coupled with socialized care. If you live from 120, that changes that "retirement" point. Mortgages are 30-year fixed rate. Social Security kicks in at 65. You could make the case that you continue to work past 65, but in what field. How many 85 year olds are in fields they could stay relevant in?
- true_religion 10y ago
  You could retrain at 65 or simply continue learning as you age. We simply don't do that because people know they will retire and die, or otherwise lose the quick wit of youth.
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    The last part is generally a prejudice nowadays. It is either laziness (and if you don't use it, you lose it) or senility due to medical reasons. What actually might be happening is genetics and society prodding young people to actually be smarter.
- summerdown2 10y ago
  An alternative way of looking at it is that societies do better when they make full use of their resources. Saudi Arabia has long been criticised (by lots of people, but particularly relevant here) by economists for the way they keep women out of the labour pool. They are making themselves uncompetitive by this. It's the same for North Korea - who are getting rid of their most interesting voices for change into hell holes. So an economic argument would be that we are currently running the years 67+ as unproductive, and the first society to change that will do better than the others. It's also possible that this is the first time in history it would be safe to allow life extension in a lot of countries due to the falling birthrate at the same time. Oh, and immortality doesn't mean living forever. I read somewhere that even if we could extend lifespan, actuarial tables show that on average people would live to about 700 before dying of accidents. > You could make the case that you continue to work past 65, but in what field. How many 85 year olds are in fields they could stay relevant in? I think this depends on whether the brain can be made young, too.

Looking at the US, our society is based on working from 18 till about 65-67. Your plan for "retirement" includes living from ~67-85 on a fixed income. That income is a combination of (ideally) retirement income, and social security, coupled with socialized care. If you live from 120, that changes that "retirement" point. Mortgages are 30-year fixed rate. Social Security kicks in at 65. You could make the case that you continue to work past 65, but in what field. How many 85 year olds are in fields they could stay relevant in?

true_religion 10y ago
You could retrain at 65 or simply continue learning as you age. We simply don't do that because people know they will retire and die, or otherwise lose the quick wit of youth.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  The last part is generally a prejudice nowadays. It is either laziness (and if you don't use it, you lose it) or senility due to medical reasons. What actually might be happening is genetics and society prodding young people to actually be smarter.
summerdown2 10y ago
An alternative way of looking at it is that societies do better when they make full use of their resources. Saudi Arabia has long been criticised (by lots of people, but particularly relevant here) by economists for the way they keep women out of the labour pool. They are making themselves uncompetitive by this. It's the same for North Korea - who are getting rid of their most interesting voices for change into hell holes. So an economic argument would be that we are currently running the years 67+ as unproductive, and the first society to change that will do better than the others. It's also possible that this is the first time in history it would be safe to allow life extension in a lot of countries due to the falling birthrate at the same time. Oh, and immortality doesn't mean living forever. I read somewhere that even if we could extend lifespan, actuarial tables show that on average people would live to about 700 before dying of accidents. > You could make the case that you continue to work past 65, but in what field. How many 85 year olds are in fields they could stay relevant in? I think this depends on whether the brain can be made young, too.