3 ms·

What if becomes super cheap? I think immortality would be bad for humanity, but ~40 more productive years would be beneficial. Currently we take 25 years of pr

What if becomes super cheap? I think immortality would be bad for humanity, but ~40 more productive years would be beneficial. Currently we take 25 years of preparation in order to work 35.

q845712 3y ago
but there's a premium on our youth -- The people who complain that it's harder to find a job in their 50s and 60s can't _all_ be wrong or mistaken. I feel like we like to imagine that these treatments would extend our 20s and 30s, but what if they extend our 60s instead?
- zachthewf 3y ago
  Most people I know in their 60s would way rather be in their 60s than dead
- blagie 3y ago
  They can't all be wrong or mistaken, but there can be a very strong sample bias. I can go into a longer diatribe here, but the short story is: 1) Most people have a hard time finding jobs at any age. Recent college grads can't all be wrong. :) 2) There is always a strong reversion to mean 3) Most of the people in their 50s or 60s whom I hear complaining were an outlier for employability for their age group in their 20s and 30s (e.g. straight out of Stanford). Most older people I know are /very/ employable, and don't complain. Another pathway: - Finish a state college. Have a very hard time finding a first job. - Work up the career ladder, and build up a resume, reputation, and track record. - Much easier time finding jobs in their 50s and 60s than straight out of college or early career. Some of this also has to do with bust/boom cycles. People who entered the workforce during recessions had a hard time finding a job in their 20s, and then found things comparatively easy. People who entered during a boom cycle are the opposite.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- osigurdson 3y ago
  That is kind of what I am saying. I think it would be better if we had 25 years of preparation, followed by 75 productive years followed by 25 years of retirement. The current 25,35,15 split isn’t very efficient. Ageism might still exist but significantly pushed back.
jncfhnb 3y ago
The you’ll see wealth inequality skyrocket as rich people enjoy wealth compounding for an additional X years.
- rbanffy 3y ago
  Unless we get rid of capitalism as well. Or, at least, force these people to pay taxes that prevent the accumulation of wealth and its undue influence in politics.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Hard. While capitalism may be an established societal practice, accumulation of wealth and power is also the natural state of things. You need an incredibly cohesive society to prevent that, the likes of which humanity has never seen imo.
    - rbanffy 3y ago
      Humanity has never seen a lot of things that are now ubiquitous. Have hope.
  - Bloating 3y ago
    What happened before capitalism?
    - osigurdson 3y ago
      Oneguyism. It is still pretty popular.
  - osigurdson 3y ago
    Communism is way better: everyone is poor except one guy.
    - osigurdson 3y ago
      Looks like I’m getting downvoted by CCP bots.
soco 3y ago
So what if this becomes super cheap? Would dental treatments or insulin or whatever other basic medication become affordable too? Because otherwise that's a hell of immortality being offered to the masses...
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  Even on a forum where really smart people congregate, the "everywhere is America" syndrom is easily seen - even though Americans only constitute about 4 per cent of the world population. Where I live, no one struggles to buy insulin. And if there is any kind of anti-aging treatment available, I don't doubt it will be offered to the general population without much ado. Compared to the rising cost of the pension systems in aging populations, treatments like that would be probably "dirt cheap".
  - osigurdson 3y ago
    I also live in a “cheap insulin” location. However, I’m pretty sure the Americans ultimately subsidize a lot of drug discovery. Even better would be to have stronger humans that require no healthcare.
- osigurdson 3y ago
  With more productive years it seems like a reasonable conclusion would be that wealth would generally increase. Of course I have no idea what actual age extension would look like, but it seems pointless to extend the 80s or 90s. More years like 30s would be ideal.

What if becomes super cheap? I think immortality would be bad for humanity, but ~40 more productive years would be beneficial. Currently we take 25 years of preparation in order to work 35.

q845712 3y ago

but there's a premium on our youth -- The people who complain that it's harder to find a job in their 50s and 60s can't _all_ be wrong or mistaken. I feel like we like to imagine that these treatments would extend our 20s and 30s, but what if they extend our 60s instead?

zachthewf 3y ago
Most people I know in their 60s would way rather be in their 60s than dead
blagie 3y ago
They can't all be wrong or mistaken, but there can be a very strong sample bias. I can go into a longer diatribe here, but the short story is: 1) Most people have a hard time finding jobs at any age. Recent college grads can't all be wrong. :) 2) There is always a strong reversion to mean 3) Most of the people in their 50s or 60s whom I hear complaining were an outlier for employability for their age group in their 20s and 30s (e.g. straight out of Stanford). Most older people I know are /very/ employable, and don't complain. Another pathway: - Finish a state college. Have a very hard time finding a first job. - Work up the career ladder, and build up a resume, reputation, and track record. - Much easier time finding jobs in their 50s and 60s than straight out of college or early career. Some of this also has to do with bust/boom cycles. People who entered the workforce during recessions had a hard time finding a job in their 20s, and then found things comparatively easy. People who entered during a boom cycle are the opposite.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
osigurdson 3y ago
That is kind of what I am saying. I think it would be better if we had 25 years of preparation, followed by 75 productive years followed by 25 years of retirement. The current 25,35,15 split isn’t very efficient. Ageism might still exist but significantly pushed back.

jncfhnb 3y ago

The you’ll see wealth inequality skyrocket as rich people enjoy wealth compounding for an additional X years.

rbanffy 3y ago
Unless we get rid of capitalism as well. Or, at least, force these people to pay taxes that prevent the accumulation of wealth and its undue influence in politics.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Hard. While capitalism may be an established societal practice, accumulation of wealth and power is also the natural state of things. You need an incredibly cohesive society to prevent that, the likes of which humanity has never seen imo.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    Humanity has never seen a lot of things that are now ubiquitous. Have hope.
- Bloating 3y ago
  What happened before capitalism?
  - osigurdson 3y ago
    Oneguyism. It is still pretty popular.
- osigurdson 3y ago
  Communism is way better: everyone is poor except one guy.
  - osigurdson 3y ago
    Looks like I’m getting downvoted by CCP bots.

soco 3y ago

So what if this becomes super cheap? Would dental treatments or insulin or whatever other basic medication become affordable too? Because otherwise that's a hell of immortality being offered to the masses...

inglor_cz 3y ago
Even on a forum where really smart people congregate, the "everywhere is America" syndrom is easily seen - even though Americans only constitute about 4 per cent of the world population. Where I live, no one struggles to buy insulin. And if there is any kind of anti-aging treatment available, I don't doubt it will be offered to the general population without much ado. Compared to the rising cost of the pension systems in aging populations, treatments like that would be probably "dirt cheap".
- osigurdson 3y ago
  I also live in a “cheap insulin” location. However, I’m pretty sure the Americans ultimately subsidize a lot of drug discovery. Even better would be to have stronger humans that require no healthcare.
osigurdson 3y ago
With more productive years it seems like a reasonable conclusion would be that wealth would generally increase. Of course I have no idea what actual age extension would look like, but it seems pointless to extend the 80s or 90s. More years like 30s would be ideal.