15 replies to this topic

[YOLF]

So I was browsing some news and saw one of those articles written to confuse young people about old people. When we are older than the seniors of today, even much much older and yet younger and healthier looking than we have ever been, will we be playing cultural roles or creating them for ourselves? 

 

When you become indefinitely young, how will you live? What articles will be written about us?

 

Will we, as the eldest, live like everyone else as we continue to work with only periodic sabbaticals, or will we live in communities comprised only of ourselves?

 

As it is, it is rare to see seniors that separate themselves from the senior community, by their age their are no social anxieties, these are the diseases of the aged and only the occasional aged person will play at having them. Will there be those among our number who live in such anxieties for hundreds if not thousands of years? Where will we place that limit if we should allow such anxieties to occur at all?

 

What factors will be present in our lives that will influence such things?

 

What will be the factors and influences of the people changing our culture over time. What kind of commitment will we have for each other?

 

Or will we all simply deceive in regards to our true ages?

 

What will determine who the oldest person is? If the early cryonicists are reanimated, and I hope we can eventually reanimate everyone, will they be the oldest, or will oldest be a measure of how long a person has lived?

[niner]

Interesting questions. We can really only speculate what life will be like in the future. It will be very dependent on biological, technological, economic and political developments. The future has a positive bias, so it's reasonable to assume that things will be better overall in the future, but I don't think we can rule out various dystopias. If we can maintain something like the body and brain of a 30 year old for an indefinite time, then I suspect we would in some ways act our body's apparent age- Maybe we would play basketball or go mountain biking for fun. If we develop a great wisdom over time, we would probably not find actual young people very interesting to hang out with. Maybe we would prefer to hang out with people who speak multiple languages, have traveled the world, hold multiple advanced degrees and have had several productive careers. Such people, having had a lot of time to become good investors as well as having a long period for compound interest to work its magic, would very possibly be quite wealthy. This would open up a variety of options that might not be available to a person who was only 30 years old, instead of 130. I don't think we would be sitting on the porch, wearing a flannel shirt, whittling, and yelling at kids to get off our lawn. If we're talking about 1000 years from now, there just won't be any elderly people. Everyone will be "young". The transitional period, where most people still age normally, but early adopters are getting the first rejuvenation treatments has a lot more potential to be weird. For one thing, in the early days, progress will be uneven. Maybe we will be able to have healthy hearts and lungs, but our brains will still be in a gradual slide toward dementia. Maybe we'll be healthy and youthful on the inside, but will look like 90 year olds on the outside. The learning curve might stretch out over a century or more- at this point it's really hard to predict.

You might want to check out Marshall Brain's view of the (or rather, a) future. It's an oldie but a goodie, with a nice twist at the end.

[theconomist]

The healthy old people of today are either leading companies, countries and NGOs or are enjoying their retirement. They are at the very top of the social ladder.
Only the chronically diseased (and poor) are forced into the traditional old person role.

I think the future of old people will be different and more interesting; more and more people will coninue working for longer, young people will be trained for longer to enter society. If the median lifespan becomes 100, there is no way a single governement will keep the retirement age in the mid sixties.
The health care and technology industries will be primordial.

[idquest]

We should probably find solutions to the solvency of pension funds first. People live longer now, but do they have enough energy even for a part time earnings while in old age? And retirement age is already 70 years in duscussion. For 40 years olds this means nothing because they haven't encountered/felt how energy dissipates with age. Those over 50 may understand what I mean.

[YOLF]

These are some interesting responses. What do immortality and perpetual youth represent to you all? Do you think everyone who chooses an indefinite lifespan will continue their education? I tend to think that as education is expensive and comes with a great deal of debt that there will have to be other things to live for, otherwise we live to pay bills. I could see free self study groups or maybe colleges founded on the idea of free, where people who've obtained an advanced degree teach what they know on a volunteer basis during intermittent retirements. Do you think we'll have the tuition based schools of today in the future?

Solving pension funds are easy. Pensioners will just be given authority over an amount of money and will have to invest it wisely. The pension system was created assuming the existence of death would be perpetual, at some point pensioners will have to realize it can't continue forever. Maybe their incomes get lower and they move to less costly areas of the world to receive their checks.

[niner]

These are some interesting responses. What do immortality and perpetual youth represent to you all? Do you think everyone who chooses an indefinite lifespan will continue their education? I tend to think that as education is expensive and comes with a great deal of debt that there will have to be other things to live for, otherwise we live to pay bills. I could see free self study groups or maybe colleges founded on the idea of free, where people who've obtained an advanced degree teach what they know on a volunteer basis during intermittent retirements. Do you think we'll have the tuition based schools of today in the future?

I think that education in the future will be very different from the traditional model. For a long time, college has been more than just a way to learn things; it's an environment where you grow into a more fully formed person. Learning a new skill set after a long and profitable career will probably not involve living in a dorm and getting drunk at keggers. (Although I hope that would at least be an option...) It will probably be mainly about learning quickly and efficiently, and getting credentialed in some way, but not represent a major change in your social life, unless that was something you were looking for. I think that free distance learning through the web is the most probable model for the near future. The far future is impossible to predict.

Solving pension funds are easy. Pensioners will just be given authority over an amount of money and will have to invest it wisely. The pension system was created assuming the existence of death would be perpetual, at some point pensioners will have to realize it can't continue forever. Maybe their incomes get lower and they move to less costly areas of the world to receive their checks.

Depends on the results you're willing to live with. First of all, where does the initial amount of money come from? If the pensioner hasn't managed to accumulate any money over their working life, do the taxpayers chip in? Next, what happens if the pensioner has no investing skill, or just has a spectacular run of bad luck, and they run out of money? Do we then let them starve? "Yes" is a legitimate answer- it's quite popular in some quarters, but if that's the choice, then you need to be aware of what that looks like, and if "no" is the answer, then there's a question of moral hazard. However, if we're assuming perpetual youth, then the whole idea of a "pensioner" should largely be a thing of the past. There might be people with irreparable deficits that prevented them from working, but presumably they would be small in number.

I think one of the toughest problems we're going to face is the question of what to do with a bunch of useless humans once machines are superior to us in most if not all respects. Once the self-modifying super-intelligence is in existence, it might be hard to make the case that humans are worth the risk that they represent to the planet. OTOH, Come the Singularity, maybe there will be a Hooters on every corner.

[Mind]

Also remember that as we move along with indefinite lifespans, chronological age will become less meaningful. Right now, the difference between someone who is 40 and someone who is 80, is significant. The difference between someone who is 480 vs. someone who is 440, is trivial.

[YOLF]

As for pensioners, I certainly wouldn't say starve. Perhaps a group fund with some amount of personal control would be better. So all pensioners choose a company to handle their pension and that company does the investment for them or they can assign a particular percentage of their pension to several companies doing the same for added security. The pension money would initially come from a long term loan that allows the company to become more competitive than they are currently by removing the liability from their balance sheet. Pensioners would take some form of cut to their income, and might have to go back to work part time for a while and current workers might get less in their pensions, but something does have to be done. For starters, I'd cut trim off any pension over $60K and reallocate the funds for sustainability, maybe even anything over $40K, Senior living is cheap, and homes in over 55 neighborhoods go for $25K or less even in places like NJ. a flat rate liveable pension might even be the best way to go with land and neighborhoods earmarked for senior homes and having value caps on them. The alternative is having people starve as you mentioned or wasting even more money. Personally, I'd take my pension and head to the cheapest place possible that was healthy.

[niner]

Senior living is cheap, and homes in over 55 neighborhoods go for $25K or less even in places like NJ.

Maybe a crackhouse in Camden, but otherwise 25K wouldn't even get you a liveable trailer.

[YOLF]

My grandfather lived in a trailer in Whiting NJ. It cost him $25K and he had bought others in the neighbor hood that needed some work that he was able to do for around $10-18K IIRC. These were pretty nice trailers too. Old and outdated maybe, but working, and that's probably what the people living in them wanted.

[niner]

My grandfather lived in a trailer in Whiting NJ. It cost him $25K and he had bought others in the neighbor hood that needed some work that he was able to do for around $10-18K IIRC. These were pretty nice trailers too. Old and outdated maybe, but working, and that's probably what the people living in them wanted.

Wow, recently? I had a relative that lived in a trailer in a beach town on the central coast of California. It was ok, but not great, and after they died, we sold it for about 65K twenty years ago. Maybe location matters. Despite the name, they aren't that easy to move. I guess you're talking about a pretty small trailer.

[Bron]

A lot like the past with the exception of more technological development.

[Mind]

My grandfather lived in a trailer in Whiting NJ. It cost him $25K and he had bought others in the neighbor hood that needed some work that he was able to do for around $10-18K IIRC. These were pretty nice trailers too. Old and outdated maybe, but working, and that's probably what the people living in them wanted.

Wow, recently? I had a relative that lived in a trailer in a beach town on the central coast of California. It was ok, but not great, and after they died, we sold it for about 65K twenty years ago. Maybe location matters. Despite the name, they aren't that easy to move. I guess you're talking about a pretty small trailer.

Livable trailers around Wisconsin often run 25K or (much) less. Of course, these are not high class outfits in high class neighborhoods. You get what you pay for, but they are definitely functional and livable.

[YOLF]

My grandfather lived in a trailer in Whiting NJ. It cost him $25K and he had bought others in the neighbor hood that needed some work that he was able to do for around $10-18K IIRC. These were pretty nice trailers too. Old and outdated maybe, but working, and that's probably what the people living in them wanted.

Wow, recently? I had a relative that lived in a trailer in a beach town on the central coast of California. It was ok, but not great, and after they died, we sold it for about 65K twenty years ago. Maybe location matters. Despite the name, they aren't that easy to move. I guess you're talking about a pretty small trailer.

Yeah, California has always been expensive. Did you know CA shares a boarder with a state other than AZ, NV, or OR?

So what's the name of the mystery state?






Ridiculous!

Real Estate in Whiting:
http://www.realtor.c...hiting_NJ/sby-1

It's either untouched by Real Estate's epic fail, or it's getting sold off for cheap to help family members.

Edited by cryonicsculture, 18 March 2013 - 11:46 AM.

[niner]

Yeah, California has always been expensive. Did you know CA shares a boarder with a state other than AZ, NV, or OR?

So what's the name of the mystery state?

Ridiculous!

Real Estate in Whiting:
http://www.realtor.c...hiting_NJ/sby-1

It's either untouched by Real Estate's epic fail, or it's getting sold off for cheap to help family members.

Umm, I don't understand a word of what you just said, but the real estate in Whiting is insanely cheap! Is there some kind of catch, like the trailer park is full of gangsters or zombies or something? My thinking about real estate is mostly focused on the fixed dwelling market, and if you get into a sufficiently undesirable neighborhood, that can get relatively cheap, but not less than 10K. You could pay a lot more than that for a used car.

[YOLF]

Well, when people get old enough, they certainly do start to look like zombies. But no, it was always a relatively peaceful neighborhood as far as I could tell. I suppose some of the cheapest ones also require renting the land. Spending $25k on one that is ready to go only requires a monthly fee for maintenance or something like that IIRC. Whiting is pretty much in the middle of nowhere. But it's all 55mph roads to get there.

I was basically saying that the "state" of CA always seems to boarder on ridiculous. It's just outlandishly expensive to live there and everything is too expensive, in comparison to low cost of living areas, it just seems silly to me.