5 ms·

> That said, anything we can do to reverse aging I am all for, I just hope our consumption patterns can become less extreme. I disagree; aging and death are na

by exelius 12y ago

> That said, anything we can do to reverse aging I am all for, I just hope our consumption patterns can become less extreme. I disagree; aging and death are natural processes that could wreak havoc economically if significantly altered. Right now, the young have the ability to progress in the economy because older people eventually leave the workforce through retirement or death. People need to be able to die naturally. If nobody died, and everyone had children, the population would simply grow with no prospect of stopping it. Though the more likely proposition would be that the wealthy who could afford the treatments would never die, and the rest of the population would. That's an even worse scenario in my opinion.

JoshTriplett 12y ago
Feel free to die then. Don't condemn everyone else. Are you going to complain because life expectancies have already gone up by decades? "We need more resources because we cured death" is precisely the kind of problem we ought to have.
- joyeuse6701 12y ago
  No need to be facetious, death need not be a condemnation, and there is value in awareness of consequence.
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    > there is value in awareness of consequence Awareness of consequence is one thing, and it's fine to anticipate the next set of problems and discuss how to address them. But "we shouldn't fix this problem because it'll raise new ones" is an awful statement, compared to "let's fix this problem; bring on the next ones and we'll fix those too". > death need not be a condemnation If you oppose other people living longer or forever, you're saying you want them dead, sooner or later. Couching it in vague or indirect language makes it no less of a condemnation.
noobermin 12y ago
Taking that hypothesis, do you suppose that the lengthening of the life expectancy of developed countries has had a negative impact on said countries? Or do you think about life prolongation is a good thing up to a point?
- exelius 12y ago
  It's a good thing up to a point, but we're seeing the negative sides of it too. Namely, we as a society expend a lot of resources on prolonging our lives (in the form of health care costs). We're probably about as far as we can go on life expectancy using cheap/preventative methods like antibiotics and diet/lifestyle changes. So any additional growth in life expectancy will probably be exponentially more expensive (and again, likely only available to the most wealthy members of society). If you look at Japan or the US, the increase in life expectancy has coincided with a drop in the birth rate - which leads to a situation where you have a lot of old people, but relatively fewer younger workers to support them than in the past. The effect has been stronger in Japan because their population growth has actually been negative for a while, but it's happened in the US and western Europe as well. The effects of this kind of "mix shifting" are subtle, but have a profound effect over a long period of time. Societal constructs that once worked when there was a high proportion of young workers break down when the balance is flipped (e.g. fewer people paying into social security, etc.)
  - melling 12y ago
    "If you look at Japan or the US, the increase in life expectancy has coincided with a drop in the birth rate" I don't think one caused the other.
    - exelius 12y ago
      I don't either -- but together, they lead to a situation where there are relatively more old people than young people.
  - orangecat 12y ago
    So any additional growth in life expectancy will probably be exponentially more expensive That's true exactly because we haven't addressed the root problem of aging. If everyone could be restored to the physical condition of a 25 year old, medical costs would fall tremendously. Which is one reason why "only the rich will be able to afford it" is unlikely; governments and insurance companies would probably profit by making anti-aging treatments free. If you look at Japan or the US, the increase in life expectancy has coincided with a drop in the birth rate - which leads to a situation where you have a lot of old people, but relatively fewer younger workers to support them than in the past. Likewise, this is only a problem because aging eventually results in the inability to be economically productive.
Florin_Andrei 12y ago
It's not like the eternal life police will one day show up at your door and condemn you to immortality. You can always die whenever you want to. That's not the hard problem to solve.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>Right now, the young have the ability to progress in the economy because older people eventually leave the workforce through retirement or death. You're kidding, right? This is some kind of bad joke in which longevity is blamed for the shitty labor market faced by Millenials? >Though the more likely proposition would be that the wealthy who could afford the treatments would never die, and the rest of the population would. That's an even worse scenario in my opinion. Yes, that's why we should smash capitalism.

by exelius 12y ago

JoshTriplett 12y ago

Feel free to die then. Don't condemn everyone else. Are you going to complain because life expectancies have already gone up by decades? "We need more resources because we cured death" is precisely the kind of problem we ought to have.

joyeuse6701 12y ago
No need to be facetious, death need not be a condemnation, and there is value in awareness of consequence.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  > there is value in awareness of consequence Awareness of consequence is one thing, and it's fine to anticipate the next set of problems and discuss how to address them. But "we shouldn't fix this problem because it'll raise new ones" is an awful statement, compared to "let's fix this problem; bring on the next ones and we'll fix those too". > death need not be a condemnation If you oppose other people living longer or forever, you're saying you want them dead, sooner or later. Couching it in vague or indirect language makes it no less of a condemnation.

noobermin 12y ago

Taking that hypothesis, do you suppose that the lengthening of the life expectancy of developed countries has had a negative impact on said countries? Or do you think about life prolongation is a good thing up to a point?

exelius 12y ago
It's a good thing up to a point, but we're seeing the negative sides of it too. Namely, we as a society expend a lot of resources on prolonging our lives (in the form of health care costs). We're probably about as far as we can go on life expectancy using cheap/preventative methods like antibiotics and diet/lifestyle changes. So any additional growth in life expectancy will probably be exponentially more expensive (and again, likely only available to the most wealthy members of society). If you look at Japan or the US, the increase in life expectancy has coincided with a drop in the birth rate - which leads to a situation where you have a lot of old people, but relatively fewer younger workers to support them than in the past. The effect has been stronger in Japan because their population growth has actually been negative for a while, but it's happened in the US and western Europe as well. The effects of this kind of "mix shifting" are subtle, but have a profound effect over a long period of time. Societal constructs that once worked when there was a high proportion of young workers break down when the balance is flipped (e.g. fewer people paying into social security, etc.)
- melling 12y ago
  "If you look at Japan or the US, the increase in life expectancy has coincided with a drop in the birth rate" I don't think one caused the other.
  - exelius 12y ago
    I don't either -- but together, they lead to a situation where there are relatively more old people than young people.
- orangecat 12y ago
  So any additional growth in life expectancy will probably be exponentially more expensive That's true exactly because we haven't addressed the root problem of aging. If everyone could be restored to the physical condition of a 25 year old, medical costs would fall tremendously. Which is one reason why "only the rich will be able to afford it" is unlikely; governments and insurance companies would probably profit by making anti-aging treatments free. If you look at Japan or the US, the increase in life expectancy has coincided with a drop in the birth rate - which leads to a situation where you have a lot of old people, but relatively fewer younger workers to support them than in the past. Likewise, this is only a problem because aging eventually results in the inability to be economically productive.

Florin_Andrei 12y ago

It's not like the eternal life police will one day show up at your door and condemn you to immortality. You can always die whenever you want to. That's not the hard problem to solve.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

>Right now, the young have the ability to progress in the economy because older people eventually leave the workforce through retirement or death. You're kidding, right? This is some kind of bad joke in which longevity is blamed for the shitty labor market faced by Millenials? >Though the more likely proposition would be that the wealthy who could afford the treatments would never die, and the rest of the population would. That's an even worse scenario in my opinion. Yes, that's why we should smash capitalism.