5 ms·

I've always found the social issues surrounding extending life to be chilling after reading Kurt Vonnegut's take on it in "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" (

by pzaich 11y ago

I've always found the social issues surrounding extending life to be chilling after reading Kurt Vonnegut's take on it in "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_and_Tomorrow_and_Tomorrow_%28short_story%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_and_Tomorrow_and_Tomor...). What would a future look like where there is very little room for young people to grow?

anigbrowl 11y ago
IT's right outside the window, it seems to me, though I'm optimistic that population growth will level off in a few years. The other problem is economic - ownership doesn't expire so in a gerontocratic society the older members will by default end up holding more and more of the wealth. Of course, one could argue that medical are in old age is a massive sink of wealth, and so anti-aging research has the possibility to mitigate that. But unless one proposes to make people immortal - which would entail massive social disruption - such advances are likely to just postpone those expenses.
ffn 11y ago
I agree that it's fun to imagine, but the realities of longevity is probably a lot more prosaic. Granted Jeanna Clement can spoke for 100 years and be fine, but that doesn't mean the rest of us won't get lung cancer 10 years in if we try it. So, at present, the real secret to longevity is either superior genes (which isn't mass distributable except over a great many generations, and even then, it means giving up a portion of our genetic diversity on a societal level), disciplined lifestyles (30% less caloric intake according to the article, which means you can kiss your gains and muscular physique good-bye), and some very tricky and expensive combination of advance medicine (which, in a world where there are people who still starve to death, seems rather out of reach). In addition, you have to avoid all accidents, which is entirely out of your hands. In a lot of ways, the concern over mass longevity squeezing the world to death is like the concern over AI robots who become intelligent enough to eradicate all of humanity or the gays mass-releasing gay gay-marriage-spores that make all the straight people fall out of love. It's fun to speculate, write country songs about, and produce post-apocalyptic movies around, but being seriously worried about it as a social issue is a little unrealistic.
- kbenson 11y ago
  While I agree neither of those things are things to be seriously worried about as social issues (currently), I think one of them deserves some critical thought.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
Those temporary social issues (and they will be temporary, just while society adjusts) cannot possibly compare to the travesty of a hundred thousand people dying every day.
- qsymmachus 11y ago
  Call me a "deathist" if you like, but dying of natural causes at a ripe old age is not a travesty.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    That's entirely your choice, as long as you don't force anyone else to follow you. Consider, however, whether you'd choose to die if you had an alternative, or whether you've simply accepted something horrific because you don't think you can do anything about it.
    - LaurentD2 11y ago
      Not dying is entirely your choice, as long as you do not consume the resources that younger generations need. If you do not die and plan to stay on Earth, then you will have a (probably very negative) impact on other people's lives. They can choose not to accept it.
      - dysfunction 11y ago
        > If you do not die and plan to stay on Earth, Where else could you possibly go? Sending you anywhere else (like a terraformed Mars) might cost more resources than would keeping you alive on Earth for hundreds of years.
      - M8 11y ago
        What about people who have 3+ kids instead of 2, while some people can only have 1? Can we choose not to accept it?
    - qsymmachus 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
guelo 11y ago
There are theories that the black death in Europe cleared the way for the progress of the enlightenment. The whole history of human civilization is about finding ways to prevent the powerful from hoarding all the gains for themselves and their children.

by pzaich 11y ago

anigbrowl 11y ago

IT's right outside the window, it seems to me, though I'm optimistic that population growth will level off in a few years. The other problem is economic - ownership doesn't expire so in a gerontocratic society the older members will by default end up holding more and more of the wealth. Of course, one could argue that medical are in old age is a massive sink of wealth, and so anti-aging research has the possibility to mitigate that. But unless one proposes to make people immortal - which would entail massive social disruption - such advances are likely to just postpone those expenses.

ffn 11y ago

I agree that it's fun to imagine, but the realities of longevity is probably a lot more prosaic. Granted Jeanna Clement can spoke for 100 years and be fine, but that doesn't mean the rest of us won't get lung cancer 10 years in if we try it. So, at present, the real secret to longevity is either superior genes (which isn't mass distributable except over a great many generations, and even then, it means giving up a portion of our genetic diversity on a societal level), disciplined lifestyles (30% less caloric intake according to the article, which means you can kiss your gains and muscular physique good-bye), and some very tricky and expensive combination of advance medicine (which, in a world where there are people who still starve to death, seems rather out of reach). In addition, you have to avoid all accidents, which is entirely out of your hands. In a lot of ways, the concern over mass longevity squeezing the world to death is like the concern over AI robots who become intelligent enough to eradicate all of humanity or the gays mass-releasing gay gay-marriage-spores that make all the straight people fall out of love. It's fun to speculate, write country songs about, and produce post-apocalyptic movies around, but being seriously worried about it as a social issue is a little unrealistic.

kbenson 11y ago
While I agree neither of those things are things to be seriously worried about as social issues (currently), I think one of them deserves some critical thought.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

Those temporary social issues (and they will be temporary, just while society adjusts) cannot possibly compare to the travesty of a hundred thousand people dying every day.

qsymmachus 11y ago
Call me a "deathist" if you like, but dying of natural causes at a ripe old age is not a travesty.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  That's entirely your choice, as long as you don't force anyone else to follow you. Consider, however, whether you'd choose to die if you had an alternative, or whether you've simply accepted something horrific because you don't think you can do anything about it.
  - LaurentD2 11y ago
    Not dying is entirely your choice, as long as you do not consume the resources that younger generations need. If you do not die and plan to stay on Earth, then you will have a (probably very negative) impact on other people's lives. They can choose not to accept it.
    - dysfunction 11y ago
      > If you do not die and plan to stay on Earth, Where else could you possibly go? Sending you anywhere else (like a terraformed Mars) might cost more resources than would keeping you alive on Earth for hundreds of years.
    - M8 11y ago
      What about people who have 3+ kids instead of 2, while some people can only have 1? Can we choose not to accept it?
  - qsymmachus 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

guelo 11y ago

There are theories that the black death in Europe cleared the way for the progress of the enlightenment. The whole history of human civilization is about finding ways to prevent the powerful from hoarding all the gains for themselves and their children.