3 ms·
16 is too young and you won't be able to do a lot of things unless you walk around with paperwork all the time. 24 sounds good but I'd pick 30 cause looking 30
by kyriakos 5y ago
16 is too young and you won't be able to do a lot of things unless you walk around with paperwork all the time. 24 sounds good but I'd pick 30 cause looking 30 people take you a bit more seriously.
You will be able to relate more with people in their 30swhen you are 50 but look 30 than with people in their 20s.
Of course in this hypothetical scenario if everyone is not aging then it all cahnges.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoYeah, maybe a separate question would be what the age would be if everyone in society was forced to pause at that age. I wonder what immortal oligarchs would even do…
- clairity 5y agothey’d find other ways to kill each other. that’s not facetious—our egos depend on getting an edge, however microscopic, over others, and when that doesn’t happen, we get angry (that is, desperate and irrational) and do things we shouldn’t. it’s a tale as old as time. that ‘modern’, ‘developed’ civilizations haven’t devolved this way yet isn’t because we’re all so cultivated now, but because we’ve lived in an unusual period of extended growth and excessive abundance which keeps destructive competition at bay. but infighting (i.e., tribalism) has been rising over the past 50+ years and is threatening to overthrow that period of prosperity and civility.
- eska 5y agoI bet that assessment would cease to be the case once we have gotten used to 100 year olds that look 16
- kyriakos 5y agoThis assumes that treatment will be available to everyone and not just to select few.
- abracadaniel 5y agoPresumably the birth rate would plummet, so the number of 100 year olds choosing to look 16 would probably vastly outnumber the actual 16 year olds.