4 ms·

This argument doesn't hold water. This assumes that depression is purely something you must be born with, and you can't get it from environmental factors. The

This argument doesn't hold water. This assumes that depression is purely something you must be born with, and you can't get it from environmental factors. The thing is, if you really lived for hundreds of years, society would be radically different. Imagine... You can't get promoted because no one above you ever retires. You can't get an entry level job, because everyone has 200+ years experience! People struggle to work the grind until they are 65 already. But you can't retire, because your death is so far away. You need to keep grinding another 500+ years... That kind of world would likely have a lot of systemic issues with depression.

mixmastamyk 7y ago
It’d be tough to survive on only 100 years savings.
pferde 7y ago
Screw depression, overpopulation due to nobody dying, yet birth rates not declining is what would have killed us long before that, through all the wars and famines.
- patrickk 7y ago
  Even bigger could be a lack of progress and stagnation, due to the dominant paradigm sustaining itself indefinitely. As the saying goes "graveyards are full of indispensable men", and "science advances one funeral at a time". This could mean a total lack of evolution in science, technology, philosophy, and so on.
  - pferde 7y ago
    Even bigger what? I was talking about what would physically kill most of us off, whereas what you mention would make the humanity merely stagnate. While not ideal, stagnation at least brings stability of sorts.
AmericanChopper 7y ago
I think this misses the bigger picture a little. Given infinite time, everything that can possibly happen will eventually happen. Presuming that there are in fact some circumstances under which you would kill yourself, you only need to consider the likelihood of them occurring. If most other causes of death have been eliminated, then the only thing that could stop you from eventually killing yourself would be if you died by some other means before that happened.
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  Bingo.
krageon 7y ago
> You need to keep grinding another 500+ years This is a societal issue that has nothing to do with a longer lifespan. The thought that you need to keep doing what you do for ten years is already plenty depressing, yet people make it to 65 just fine.

mixmastamyk 7y ago

It’d be tough to survive on only 100 years savings.

pferde 7y ago

Screw depression, overpopulation due to nobody dying, yet birth rates not declining is what would have killed us long before that, through all the wars and famines.

patrickk 7y ago
Even bigger could be a lack of progress and stagnation, due to the dominant paradigm sustaining itself indefinitely. As the saying goes "graveyards are full of indispensable men", and "science advances one funeral at a time". This could mean a total lack of evolution in science, technology, philosophy, and so on.
- pferde 7y ago
  Even bigger what? I was talking about what would physically kill most of us off, whereas what you mention would make the humanity merely stagnate. While not ideal, stagnation at least brings stability of sorts.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

I think this misses the bigger picture a little. Given infinite time, everything that can possibly happen will eventually happen. Presuming that there are in fact some circumstances under which you would kill yourself, you only need to consider the likelihood of them occurring. If most other causes of death have been eliminated, then the only thing that could stop you from eventually killing yourself would be if you died by some other means before that happened.

earthboundkid 7y ago
Bingo.

krageon 7y ago

> You need to keep grinding another 500+ years This is a societal issue that has nothing to do with a longer lifespan. The thought that you need to keep doing what you do for ten years is already plenty depressing, yet people make it to 65 just fine.