5 ms·

What would you do with more years added to your life? Probably spend it glued to your phone like the years you have now.

dawhizkid 9y ago
Even if the price of such a drug was $0, realistically only wealthy people could afford to live significantly longer.
- rictic 9y ago
  What? Why?
  - dawhizkid 9y ago
    People in this country can barely scrap up enough money for a 20 year retirement, if they even do that. If everyone suddenly lived on average another 40-50 years, when do you retire? How does that effect the sustainability of a pension scheme/social security?
    - pjscott 9y ago
      The answer, for people who aren't going to die soon, is "live longer, and get the money to cover it as you go." In practice that'll mean fewer people on a retirement-and-death path and more people working in their 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s and 100s and 110s and so on, if all goes well.
      - dawhizkid 9y ago
        So philosophically is working until you're 110 is a superior life? Assuming there will be fewer good jobs in the future due to automation, would crowding a job market with older workers in their 80s, 90s, 100s a good thing for society and young people entering the job market? The lucky few, with some in tech reading HN, work on what they're intrinsically excited by and get paid to do it. Most don't.
        pjscott 9y ago
        Philosophically, working until you're n years old is optimal -- for some value of n that I wouldn't think to dictate to anyone else. Maybe it's 50, and maybe it's 500. I don't know how it'll work out a few centuries from now and neither does anyone else. With luck maybe some of us will live long enough that we'll be able to offer more than glib speculation. Until then, to the extent that I can, I prefer to err on the side of not killing billions of people.
    - naasking 9y ago
      > If everyone suddenly lived on average another 40-50 years, when do you retire? You retire when you can for however long you can afford, then eventually go back to school and start again. That's the whole point of multiple lifetimes. If that doesn't interest you, then you can live your one full life, retire and die like all of your ancestors.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
pjscott 9y ago
Carrying that glum logic to its natural conclusion, you might as well just throw yourself onto the nearest train tracks and wait for the next few tons of coal. You probably won't, though, so in the spirit of dialogue I ask you: why not? If you come up with a satisfying answer to that question, it probably won't be far from Vitalik's reason for donating to anti-aging research.

dawhizkid 9y ago

Even if the price of such a drug was $0, realistically only wealthy people could afford to live significantly longer.

rictic 9y ago
What? Why?
- dawhizkid 9y ago
  People in this country can barely scrap up enough money for a 20 year retirement, if they even do that. If everyone suddenly lived on average another 40-50 years, when do you retire? How does that effect the sustainability of a pension scheme/social security?
  - pjscott 9y ago
    The answer, for people who aren't going to die soon, is "live longer, and get the money to cover it as you go." In practice that'll mean fewer people on a retirement-and-death path and more people working in their 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s and 100s and 110s and so on, if all goes well.
    - dawhizkid 9y ago
      So philosophically is working until you're 110 is a superior life? Assuming there will be fewer good jobs in the future due to automation, would crowding a job market with older workers in their 80s, 90s, 100s a good thing for society and young people entering the job market? The lucky few, with some in tech reading HN, work on what they're intrinsically excited by and get paid to do it. Most don't.
      - pjscott 9y ago
        Philosophically, working until you're n years old is optimal -- for some value of n that I wouldn't think to dictate to anyone else. Maybe it's 50, and maybe it's 500. I don't know how it'll work out a few centuries from now and neither does anyone else. With luck maybe some of us will live long enough that we'll be able to offer more than glib speculation. Until then, to the extent that I can, I prefer to err on the side of not killing billions of people.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > If everyone suddenly lived on average another 40-50 years, when do you retire? You retire when you can for however long you can afford, then eventually go back to school and start again. That's the whole point of multiple lifetimes. If that doesn't interest you, then you can live your one full life, retire and die like all of your ancestors.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

pjscott 9y ago

Carrying that glum logic to its natural conclusion, you might as well just throw yourself onto the nearest train tracks and wait for the next few tons of coal. You probably won't, though, so in the spirit of dialogue I ask you: why not? If you come up with a satisfying answer to that question, it probably won't be far from Vitalik's reason for donating to anti-aging research.