4 ms·
A big part of that is employers not wanting to invest in someone who is about to permanently leave the workforce. If the retirement age scaled with lifespan, or
by Encosia 12y ago
A big part of that is employers not wanting to invest in someone who is about to permanently leave the workforce. If the retirement age scaled with lifespan, or adapted along the lines of what landryraccoon suggested, that would probably change. If you went back 200 years from today, most people would probably think it's not even possible that 63% of my generation would be unmarried by age 30.
- jqm 12y agoPart of it might also be that employers may not feel a 62 year old can do what a 32 year old can. (Unmarried at 30 is an unrelated issue.) Are they wrong? Where are 95 years olds going to work? What are the going to be capable of doing? Uber drivers? They are going to have to fix a bunch of stuff rather than just extend life for this to be feasible. I hope they do that first, and worry about extending life after they have fixed degeneration. Or we, are going to have to re-arrange our social/economic systems considerably so work isn't such necessity.
- Encosia 12y agoIf I understand correctly, the implication is that if science can make us live a thousand years, a 62 year old would be almost every bit as vital as a 32 year old. The life extension would be at a fundamental level, not just keeping older folks on life support for longer.