> but to be honest, it's ineffectual life. This extra time will be spent being old. Whether you're 70 or 100, you will be frail, dim-witted[1], and unattractive.
I have seldom read such an amazing load of (sorry, to say it this way) bullshit and disdain of the old/being old.
I am in my thirties and I really am in awe the live, the doings, the stories of a lot of elders around me.
Sorry, but how young are you?
Getting older and eventually dying is imho, what defines our humanity. Granted, we have learned to extend live by a reasonably amount and have also, in a lot of cases, learned to lengthen it in a way, that gives people a lot of life-quality during their elder years.
In former times, being 40 to 50 meant you were frail, old, broken by hard work, and so on. Now, in most cases, that happens probably in your 70ies.
Anecdotal: Looking at my stepfather, who is helping us renovate our home and being 78, I wonder, how I will ever be able to do that much, when I am his age. Or my slightly younger stepmother.
By the way, he rides his bicycle for 4.500 miles every year, just for fun...
> If you doubt this, consider that practically any old person would be willing to give up all of their material possessions to inhabit the body of a 20 year-old.
Oh yeah, I really doubt this - I know a lot of older people and most of them would not want this trade in.
You are arguing from a very dangerous standpoint, as you argue, that cognitive decline makes live unworthy (and with that every old person). Thinking your argument through you arrive very fast at a point, where we have to get rid of older people, as their lives are "ineffectual life", I really feel only contempt for this race for efficiency, when it is used to divide people into categories like worthy/unworthy or lives in effectual/ineffectual.
Sorry, but I have to take a stand here, as your inhuman comment is the most upvoted here, standing on top. For me, that stains the whole of this community.
> Getting older and eventually dying is imho, what defines our humanity.
Maybe, but is that a good thing?
To simply "expire out of existence" is a big issue for "humanity". It's the main reason why there's no proper answer to "what's the meaning of life" - whatever you do during your 50/70/120/.. years of life you'll eventually end up just as dead as the guy right next to you. Congratulations!
Being immortal would allow us to get rid of crutches like religion and allow us to implement proper moral systems, since there would be tangible rewards to being "good" simply for "goodness' sake", since being good and being selfish would be identical - if you'll (eventually but reiably) suffer overpoputlation, pollution and even unemployment just as much as the next guy, you'll (eventually but, again, reiably) think twice about elbow tactics.
> Oh yeah, I really doubt this - I know a lot of older people and most of them would not want this trade in.
20? Maybe. but How about being in the body of a 30- or 40-year old again? I can't imagine any 70-year olds not wanting to have a more "hassle-free" body, all other things being equal.
> makes live unworthy
Talking about live being "unworthy" is a slippery slope, but there nevertheless is an argument to be made about quality vs quantity of life .
I don't have the reference (and the exact numbers) at hand, but in "Happiness Hypothesis" (the Book) the author mentions a survey where people got to express their preference between "living x years of life and then dying to some tragic accident" and "x+y years of life, but y years spent in a wheelchair, because of some tragic accident". The results were rather mixed with the shorter life being more popular choice.
And, by the end of the day, a chance at higher-quality life in exchange for possibly less total life is also why things like armed robberies exist (even if not every robber things of it like that beforehand). I'd also argue the same is true of people opting for high-risk jobs, but there's also a sense-of-duty aspect to them, so it's not quite as clear-cut there.
>20? Maybe. but How about being in the body of a 30- or 40-year old again? I can't imagine any 70-year olds not wanting to have a more "hassle-free" body, all other things being equal.
Nobody is going to pay for your pension forever. Do you really want to spend your entire life working?
Not a lot of people get pensions where I live anymore (or at least, not enough of one to live on comfortably). If you don't want to spend your entire life working, you could save for retirement, same as you (hopefully) do now. A lot of people plan their retirement so that they can live off the returns of their investments without touching the principal. If you do this, there's not much difference between retiring for 20 years versus 200.
I live in germany but I tried to use common sense.
In this scenario our society would be split into two groups if we pay pensions for eternity:
Those who lived long enough to receive their pension. Their body turns 30 again thanks to breakthroughs in science.
And those who never age beyond 30 and so they never get their pension.
The first group effectively gets "basic income" and they probably own houses/apartments so their living costs are quite low. You can either let everyone have pensions or get rid of pensions.
Spot on. Just writing to add that a hypothesis that may explain part of why you get "lower levels of cognitive performance" as you age, is that you've quite a few more data points in mind to draw on (consciously or not) when processing new information.
Exactly, slightly slower processor, better abstractions. In other words : wisdom (not a mandatory property of being old though). That's why I'm so so sad about management replacing 40+ people by young idi*ts fresh out of school.
I have seldom read such an amazing load of (sorry, to say it this way) bullshit and disdain of the old/being old.
I am in my thirties and I really am in awe the live, the doings, the stories of a lot of elders around me.
Sorry, but how young are you?
Getting older and eventually dying is imho, what defines our humanity. Granted, we have learned to extend live by a reasonably amount and have also, in a lot of cases, learned to lengthen it in a way, that gives people a lot of life-quality during their elder years.
In former times, being 40 to 50 meant you were frail, old, broken by hard work, and so on. Now, in most cases, that happens probably in your 70ies.
Anecdotal: Looking at my stepfather, who is helping us renovate our home and being 78, I wonder, how I will ever be able to do that much, when I am his age. Or my slightly younger stepmother.
By the way, he rides his bicycle for 4.500 miles every year, just for fun...
> If you doubt this, consider that practically any old person would be willing to give up all of their material possessions to inhabit the body of a 20 year-old.
Oh yeah, I really doubt this - I know a lot of older people and most of them would not want this trade in.
You are arguing from a very dangerous standpoint, as you argue, that cognitive decline makes live unworthy (and with that every old person). Thinking your argument through you arrive very fast at a point, where we have to get rid of older people, as their lives are "ineffectual life", I really feel only contempt for this race for efficiency, when it is used to divide people into categories like worthy/unworthy or lives in effectual/ineffectual.
Sorry, but I have to take a stand here, as your inhuman comment is the most upvoted here, standing on top. For me, that stains the whole of this community.
So now, let the downvotes beging. ;-)