5 ms·
I imagine if you have a longer future to look forward to that also changes the incentives for investing in yourself. So not only would the people who invest in
by samvher 7y ago
I imagine if you have a longer future to look forward to that also changes the incentives for investing in yourself. So not only would the people who invest in their futures be able to use their knowledge for longer, more people might invest in their future as well. The fixed costs of building a life are pretty high (let's say 25 years) and they're expected to pay off over the following 40 years of so - if this 40 becomes 70 or 100 that changes a lot.
- jacobush 7y agoYou are saying I could delay investing ?
- samvher 7y agoI'm not sure how you read that in my comment. Maybe you could, but I think in general regardless of the length of a life it makes most sense to have most of the investment phase in the first part of your life (although when science/tech evolve you need to stay up to date of course).
- jacobush 7y agoI got you, I just cheekily tried to note that people are also excellent at procrastinating what they can.
- raducu 7y agoMaybe the costs are not fixed at 25, but 1/3 or 1/4 of life. If you could live to 300, competition would eventually make it that you have to spend 150 years "building a life" (but hey, you still get 150 years of a good life).
- samvher 7y agoI think that's exactly the point that I'm trying to make. Most of the population ends up spending a much larger time of their life investing in skills and knowledge. So the total amount of knowledge in society would end up being far larger.
- raducu 7y agoThat would be true for the wrong type of knowledge also -- politics, manipulation, power accumulation and so on. If you think the 0.5% are bad enough now, wait until they can live to 500.