6 ms·

The average age of university presidents and members of Congress in the USA is in the 70s. At the risk of sounding callous can we fix our gerontoctratic system

The average age of university presidents and members of Congress in the USA is in the 70s. At the risk of sounding callous can we fix our gerontoctratic system and then fix aging?

blacktriangle 5y ago
Honestly why is that a problem? Wouldn't one thing that we'd want the people with the most experience in higher level management positions. I don't think the problem with Congress is that members are in their 70s. The problem is that ideally they would have real jobs till their 60s THEN run for government. Instead they bum around various government roles till they get elected in their 30s and once they are there dig in like tics.
- techbio 5y ago
  Self-fulfilling policy is the best policy. Also: "...like tic[-tac-toe]
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    If they intended the insect, "tick" is/was correct.
jjallen 5y ago
These sound like two separate problems. That is only 500 people you are talking about. What about the other 7.4B of u s? Also, they are the ones who are supposed to fix that problem.
ben_w 5y ago
I suspect gerontocracy would be a distinct without a difference after someone invents any real fountain-of-youth category of tech (mind uploading included), in much the same way that land ownership went from being a requirement for voting to merely one of many ways to hold wealth as the USA went from an agrarian to an industrial society. Big difference going from 50 to 70; proportionally less going from 600 to 700, even if the world isn’t changing in a way that makes recent experience count for more than ancient experience.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  "land ownership" A distracting thought: isn't it striking how "real property ownership" has returned as a marker of better societal status? A mere 50-60 years ago, even working class could own (arguably not very nice) dwellings in coastal California etc. The same development can be seen in Europe. If I had to choose, I'd rather be an owner of 3-4 nice pieces of real estate than a highly qualified professional. This is a certain return to feudalism, in a sense. As for your original idea: going from 600 to 700 is not a big deal. But the intermediate phase is going to be a big challenge. The first generation that enjoys the possibility of life extension to, say, 120, is going occupy their positions of power for a disproportionately long time and will need to be persuaded to step away; possibly in exchange for a lot of money.
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    You know that Simpson's episode where Bart lines up a bunch of megaphones so that the amplified output of each one goes into the input of the next? Obviously in the real world the sound would saturate. Exponential amplification would stop after one or two megaphones as a few tones would "win" and suppress the others. The joke is that in the cartoon world it keeps on going and turns into a sonic tidal wave and we all laugh at the idea of ten megaphones producing a sonic tidal wave. Yet when we design an economic system by the exact same principle, people wonder why we get ten shrieking megaphones instead of a magical tidal wave.
giantg2 5y ago
But if we extend life then we can have these wonderful rulers for even longer. (Sarcasm) Edit: I forgot HN does not enjoy sarcasm
wgolsen 5y ago
My favorite response to this and related objections to ending aging (such as “what about the dictators”): imagine a scenario where humans did not age, but still had the problems of “gerontocracy” and dictatorships. Would you propose subjecting the whole of humanity to debilitating degenerative diseases and ultimately death to solve these societal problems? I picked this up from Ageless by Andrew Steele, a highly recommended and very current overview of the field of aging research.
- writeslowly 5y ago
  I've never considered this question before, but if people did live forever, requiring people in certain positions of power to be subject to some sort of incurable, debilitating disease or guaranteed death seems like a pretty reasonable safeguard to me.
  - Stupulous 5y ago
    If people live forever except for those in power, and power is opt-in rather than, e.g., sortition, power can only go to people who prefer it over eternal life. That group will be composed of the insane/irrational, those who value power at extremes, those who value improving the world over their own lives, and those who have lived long enough that they're ready to move on. The last two categories are great candidates for empowerment, but one is rare and grows rarer, and the other doesn't show up for upwards of centuries. Until then you mostly get the first two, which suck. Eventually, I think, we burn through everyone willing to make the trade-off and we're left with no power centralization. Unless you mean they only face death for the duration that they are in power, as an enforcement of term limits. I don't think that is materially different from other enforcement of term limits- if a dictator is able to compromise the military, they can probably also compromise whoever has the power to stop their impending death.
- courtf 5y ago
  ... yes? Preventing immortal dictators is absolutely worth keeping death around. It's hilarious to me how shortsighted this whole thing is, if immortal dictators rule humanity indefinitely, how long do you think they'll let you live?
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
Imagine being fresh out of school, competing in the job market against a huge pool of people who have been working for a century. Now that I think of it, though, what's the difference between a gerontocracy and hiring the most experienced senior candidates? Is it just government vs private sector?
- godelski 5y ago
  Imagine going to school for 50 years? You're still a child at 100? Imagine being able to use compounding interest for a hundred years before you start work. I do not think we can approach this world with our current perceptions.
  - _carbyau_ 5y ago
    The biggest concern I have is that with current societal expectations an infinite life span would mean working for thousands of years for someone else with little to no retirement phase of life. Effectively, infinite slavery. No, we require major societal change for this to be attractive. Regards compounding interest, the economic markets have a basis in reality and so can't keep compounding forever. Also even if it does compound forever, your trifling savings compounded for 100 years means very little compared to all the elder around you who have also compounded their much larger wealth(having compounded across previous centuries too) across that time. Which means you will still be significantly outbid by most of the customer base for anything you could want.
    - godelski 5y ago
      > No, we require major societal change for this to be attractive. I agree. But unfortunately my understanding of history suggests that cultural and political change is reactionary, not forward thinking. I'd love it if it was forward thinking but I'm not hopeful that this time it'll be different. But if I'm right (and I think most people will agree) then there's no real point to this aspect of the argument because it's not something we can solve. > Regards compounding interest, the economic markets have a basis in reality and so can't keep compounding forever. Do you have evidence of this? This is essentially what generational wealth is. > your trifling savings compounded for 100 years means very little compared to all the elder around you who have also compounded their much larger wealth I have a bit of a controversial opinion on this (though I'm not sure why). I don't think it is about how far the ladder goes up, I'm more concerned with where the lowest rung is. If moving the lowest rung up requires shortening the ladder, so be it. But if it doesn't, so be it. If you can have a house, food, healthcare, and all your basic needs taken care of (which I presume will continue to increase as we take care of more needs. Moving goal post) then that is a win. I don't care how high the ladder goes if the lowest rung is post scarcity. If every person can has all their needs taken care of I don't care if there's a few x-airs that have quantum space yachts with holodecks. You don't have to compare yourself to everyone else. Everyone doesn't need to be equal. That's not a requirement to create a post scarcity world where everyone can pursue their dreams without worry of hunger or health. Inflation adjusted, food has become become a lot cheaper over the last hundred years, so at least one of those things is on the right track. What we're talking about would put healthcare on the right track (especially if you're pro single payer). Seems the other ones will similarly decrease in price as they become necessary (again, back to the reactionary nature). Maybe you disagree though. But as long as there are people, like you, pushing for these things, I have good reason to believe we will obtain them.
epicureanideal 5y ago
Disclaimer: this is a non-partisan comment. Both parties are reflected below. It makes me wonder if the US system will break down the same way the USSR broke down. As the politicians from the "early days" age out, it's difficult to replace them with people who are similarly bought into the system. And you end up with a Gorbachev or equivalent. I'm not sure if our Gorbachev is an AOC-like or a Trump-like or something else, but it's possible we'll have difficulty filling in the ranks of the Pelosis, Schumers, McConnells, etc.
ajuc 5y ago
What if experience is beneficial at such positions and fixing aging would benefit us even more? Imagine if Einstein and Newton each lived for 400 years and met each other.

The average age of university presidents and members of Congress in the USA is in the 70s. At the risk of sounding callous can we fix our gerontoctratic system and then fix aging?

blacktriangle 5y ago

Honestly why is that a problem? Wouldn't one thing that we'd want the people with the most experience in higher level management positions. I don't think the problem with Congress is that members are in their 70s. The problem is that ideally they would have real jobs till their 60s THEN run for government. Instead they bum around various government roles till they get elected in their 30s and once they are there dig in like tics.

techbio 5y ago
Self-fulfilling policy is the best policy. Also: "...like tic[-tac-toe]
- sokoloff 5y ago
  If they intended the insect, "tick" is/was correct.

jjallen 5y ago

These sound like two separate problems. That is only 500 people you are talking about. What about the other 7.4B of u s? Also, they are the ones who are supposed to fix that problem.

ben_w 5y ago

I suspect gerontocracy would be a distinct without a difference after someone invents any real fountain-of-youth category of tech (mind uploading included), in much the same way that land ownership went from being a requirement for voting to merely one of many ways to hold wealth as the USA went from an agrarian to an industrial society. Big difference going from 50 to 70; proportionally less going from 600 to 700, even if the world isn’t changing in a way that makes recent experience count for more than ancient experience.

inglor_cz 5y ago
"land ownership" A distracting thought: isn't it striking how "real property ownership" has returned as a marker of better societal status? A mere 50-60 years ago, even working class could own (arguably not very nice) dwellings in coastal California etc. The same development can be seen in Europe. If I had to choose, I'd rather be an owner of 3-4 nice pieces of real estate than a highly qualified professional. This is a certain return to feudalism, in a sense. As for your original idea: going from 600 to 700 is not a big deal. But the intermediate phase is going to be a big challenge. The first generation that enjoys the possibility of life extension to, say, 120, is going occupy their positions of power for a disproportionately long time and will need to be persuaded to step away; possibly in exchange for a lot of money.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  You know that Simpson's episode where Bart lines up a bunch of megaphones so that the amplified output of each one goes into the input of the next? Obviously in the real world the sound would saturate. Exponential amplification would stop after one or two megaphones as a few tones would "win" and suppress the others. The joke is that in the cartoon world it keeps on going and turns into a sonic tidal wave and we all laugh at the idea of ten megaphones producing a sonic tidal wave. Yet when we design an economic system by the exact same principle, people wonder why we get ten shrieking megaphones instead of a magical tidal wave.

giantg2 5y ago

But if we extend life then we can have these wonderful rulers for even longer. (Sarcasm) Edit: I forgot HN does not enjoy sarcasm

wgolsen 5y ago

My favorite response to this and related objections to ending aging (such as “what about the dictators”): imagine a scenario where humans did not age, but still had the problems of “gerontocracy” and dictatorships. Would you propose subjecting the whole of humanity to debilitating degenerative diseases and ultimately death to solve these societal problems? I picked this up from Ageless by Andrew Steele, a highly recommended and very current overview of the field of aging research.

writeslowly 5y ago
I've never considered this question before, but if people did live forever, requiring people in certain positions of power to be subject to some sort of incurable, debilitating disease or guaranteed death seems like a pretty reasonable safeguard to me.
- Stupulous 5y ago
  If people live forever except for those in power, and power is opt-in rather than, e.g., sortition, power can only go to people who prefer it over eternal life. That group will be composed of the insane/irrational, those who value power at extremes, those who value improving the world over their own lives, and those who have lived long enough that they're ready to move on. The last two categories are great candidates for empowerment, but one is rare and grows rarer, and the other doesn't show up for upwards of centuries. Until then you mostly get the first two, which suck. Eventually, I think, we burn through everyone willing to make the trade-off and we're left with no power centralization. Unless you mean they only face death for the duration that they are in power, as an enforcement of term limits. I don't think that is materially different from other enforcement of term limits- if a dictator is able to compromise the military, they can probably also compromise whoever has the power to stop their impending death.
courtf 5y ago
... yes? Preventing immortal dictators is absolutely worth keeping death around. It's hilarious to me how shortsighted this whole thing is, if immortal dictators rule humanity indefinitely, how long do you think they'll let you live?

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

Imagine being fresh out of school, competing in the job market against a huge pool of people who have been working for a century. Now that I think of it, though, what's the difference between a gerontocracy and hiring the most experienced senior candidates? Is it just government vs private sector?

godelski 5y ago
Imagine going to school for 50 years? You're still a child at 100? Imagine being able to use compounding interest for a hundred years before you start work. I do not think we can approach this world with our current perceptions.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  The biggest concern I have is that with current societal expectations an infinite life span would mean working for thousands of years for someone else with little to no retirement phase of life. Effectively, infinite slavery. No, we require major societal change for this to be attractive. Regards compounding interest, the economic markets have a basis in reality and so can't keep compounding forever. Also even if it does compound forever, your trifling savings compounded for 100 years means very little compared to all the elder around you who have also compounded their much larger wealth(having compounded across previous centuries too) across that time. Which means you will still be significantly outbid by most of the customer base for anything you could want.
  - godelski 5y ago
    > No, we require major societal change for this to be attractive. I agree. But unfortunately my understanding of history suggests that cultural and political change is reactionary, not forward thinking. I'd love it if it was forward thinking but I'm not hopeful that this time it'll be different. But if I'm right (and I think most people will agree) then there's no real point to this aspect of the argument because it's not something we can solve. > Regards compounding interest, the economic markets have a basis in reality and so can't keep compounding forever. Do you have evidence of this? This is essentially what generational wealth is. > your trifling savings compounded for 100 years means very little compared to all the elder around you who have also compounded their much larger wealth I have a bit of a controversial opinion on this (though I'm not sure why). I don't think it is about how far the ladder goes up, I'm more concerned with where the lowest rung is. If moving the lowest rung up requires shortening the ladder, so be it. But if it doesn't, so be it. If you can have a house, food, healthcare, and all your basic needs taken care of (which I presume will continue to increase as we take care of more needs. Moving goal post) then that is a win. I don't care how high the ladder goes if the lowest rung is post scarcity. If every person can has all their needs taken care of I don't care if there's a few x-airs that have quantum space yachts with holodecks. You don't have to compare yourself to everyone else. Everyone doesn't need to be equal. That's not a requirement to create a post scarcity world where everyone can pursue their dreams without worry of hunger or health. Inflation adjusted, food has become become a lot cheaper over the last hundred years, so at least one of those things is on the right track. What we're talking about would put healthcare on the right track (especially if you're pro single payer). Seems the other ones will similarly decrease in price as they become necessary (again, back to the reactionary nature). Maybe you disagree though. But as long as there are people, like you, pushing for these things, I have good reason to believe we will obtain them.

epicureanideal 5y ago

Disclaimer: this is a non-partisan comment. Both parties are reflected below. It makes me wonder if the US system will break down the same way the USSR broke down. As the politicians from the "early days" age out, it's difficult to replace them with people who are similarly bought into the system. And you end up with a Gorbachev or equivalent. I'm not sure if our Gorbachev is an AOC-like or a Trump-like or something else, but it's possible we'll have difficulty filling in the ranks of the Pelosis, Schumers, McConnells, etc.

ajuc 5y ago

What if experience is beneficial at such positions and fixing aging would benefit us even more? Imagine if Einstein and Newton each lived for 400 years and met each other.