The bigger problem, and probably much easier to solve, is the illusion of self and self-interest. Just tweak people so that they don’t have the cognitive bias of supposing that it matters how long they live. People think that it matters only because they have been programmed to.
1 Like
Forget lightning… #1 cause of death is the sun exploding.
Unless we can get it first!
1 Like
The operative word is “children”, though. Family dynamics will be way different when you and your children are well past your 120. What is family and how we cope with loss is heavily influenced by culture and thus will change, too.
1 Like
If you’ll live long enough, everything will be a re-run.
I’m less concerned with what an end to aging would do in terms of biological evolution than what it would mean in terms of cultural stagnation and entrenched power structures.
Consider, if such technology had existed 70 years ago it’s extremely likely that Josef Stalin would still be in power.
6 Likes
Yep. Much social progress has been gained through natural causes.
2 Likes
6 Likes
Ending aging sounds like a good idea to me.
The economy would benefit from people being producers for a bigger percentage of their lives.
People would benefit from being able to learn from their mistakes to a higher degree before dying, resulting in higher average wisdom in the population.
There are problems, but these are technical/cultural ones, and can be fixed, maybe even without enacting bloody revolutions.
There are likely to be more unexpected benefits. For example, evolution may not be entirely a good thing. For millions of years, having lots of sex has meant having lots of children. We’ve broken that link with prophylactics, however. Future generations will have parents who really really want children, are really unlucky, and/or are dumbasses who can’t make birth-control work. These are not traits I would want to select for and concentrate in a future population. “Wants lots of sex” is a trait that’s pretty darn compatible with sustainability. Having great-great-great-great-grandpa around to keep his descendants in line might turn out to be advantageous.
Plus, more potential babysitters…
I was recently reminded that I’m likely descended from one of the key figures behind the Salem Witch Trials. I think my modern-day family is probably better off without that kind of guidance.
3 Likes
I think you’re assuming they’d still be an unrepentant asshole after 400 and some years of life experience and character development, even with lots of scientific discoveries to shake their world-view.
In your experience which group is more likely to cling to outdated ideas about how societies should work: old people or young people?
We tend to get more inflexible and set in our ways as we age, not less.
2 Likes
Rich people?
4 Likes
If we all stopped aging immediately the world would have a lot fewer problems.
It may well prove easier to live a long time, than to create a world where a reasonable person would want to.
4 Likes
Obligatory Mitchell and Webb, https://youtu.be/qkaj3NQPeWM
2 Likes
I wouldn’t want to live forever. Life would be boring as f*** after the 2nd century or so. People just keep doing the same stupid things to each other over and over.
Why specifically 150, though? Why not 160? After all, you might feel differently in the event that on your 149th birthday you’re as healthy as a 30 year old.
1 Like
Totally true, but biologically, is that separate from or part of the rest of the aging process? If I’m 500 years old with a 20 or 30 year old’s body, what kind of brain do I have? I hope a young and adaptable one, I’d need it to cope with centuries worth of cultural and technological change.
You don’t need to. You can also opt out. Kill yourself, etc.
Anyway, we don’t even know what will happen. Perhaps even people who do nothing but watch Football when they come back from the Gizo Factory will start reading classics or writing novels. And of course there is far more worthwhile material to read or even watch in a lifetime.
1 Like
