[Ocker]

Life expectancy is increasing in the developed world. But Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey believes it will soon extend dramatically to 1,000. Here, he explains why.

Read the article here.

[| I, CWAS |]

For one thing this would destory the world. Possibly leading governments to ban living to a certain age. I think the man is a nutjob producing to much empiric science, but more power to him if he can prove himself right

[Noumenon]

He's probably a nutjob, but I hope its true. I don't think it would destroy the wolrd, as long as people reproduce less.

[| I, CWAS |]

Noumenon

He's probably a nutjob, but I hope its true. I don't think it would destroy the wolrd, as long as people reproduce less.

what do you think would happen within the market? Seems to me retirement would end up being about near a millenia, which means next to know freed up positions, therby the only way one can employ is by expansion, which is unlikely to happen.

I wonder if this would change fertility imagine 1 kid a decade for 900 years.

[Noumenon]

what do you think would happen within the market? Seems to me retirement would end up being about near a millenia, which means next to know freed up positions, therby the only way one can employ is by expansion, which is unlikely to happen.

You are aware that the economy is constantly growing, right? This adds new jobs all the time. What is unlikely is that it will stop growing. And also I predict that in a few hundred years, working will become less and less necessary. Just look at the progress we made since the early Industrial Revolution. When that began, people had to work 80 hour weeks just to survive. Then as total wealth increased, the average hours worked per week was reduced to 70, 60, 50, and now 40. It is not inconceivable that in another 200 years, it could be down to 10 or 15.

[Thoss]

Our environment can barely support us living to 70 or 80. If one day, we can live to 1000 then we, meaning humanity, better invent vaster then light travel so we can find Earth II to destroy.

[Pablo]

Going by the looks of him you wouldn't think his argument is credible, he looks like he only has a couple of good years left in him.

Why don't they worry about making the people on earth live half decently rather than a few fat rich elites growing to a riper stenchier old age. Thats who will benefit, no one else.

[Ocker]

Please, do tell who "they" are?

Why should scientists be forced to work on a particular focus area? That premise would destroy scientific effort, forcing it into bureaucratic mediocrity.

[Pablo]

Who said 'force', merely a observation on the things we consider to be worth researching. Waste of time i believe.

[| I, CWAS |]

Noumenon

You are aware that the economy is constantly growing, right? This adds new jobs all the time. What is unlikely is that it will stop growing. And also I predict that in a few hundred years, working will become less and less necessary. Just look at the progress we made since the early Industrial Revolution. When that began, people had to work 80 hour weeks just to survive. Then as total wealth increased, the average hours worked per week was reduced to 70, 60, 50, and now 40. It is not inconceivable that in another 200 years, it could be down to 10 or 15.

Yes I'm aware but that was my position, technology negates the need for a lot of jobs, and this is only going to continue, completely reducing the industrial/manufacturing sector to minimism, then we have the service industry outsourcing many positions. Lets sat the work week was reduced ot 15 hours, assuming real wages are enough to live off of, and we a surplus population in the billions due to the length of life, with our week being 40 hours a week now, it would simply be 2 1/2 workers to make up that time slack in this world where we live 1000 years, however with techonology, and a surplus population of at least a billion, the market cannot possibly conform. Social Security would be done plain and simple, and in 10-25 years the economy is going to see a moderate to major reconstruction due to the baby boomers retiring, freeing up many positions, and due to a soon to be dearth , altering the pay scale, just imagine if the wouldn't be retiring for another 800 years. What I see happening is a problem we have here and in most countries, where you have Ph.D's driving cabs to make ends meet, and with such as inundation of labor I would assume wages would be static, especially if we were to abolish the minimum wage.

[Cap]

Going by the looks of him you wouldn't think his argument is credible

What a simple-minded position.


Neo-Gnostic Libertine... I can only assume your motivation for posting the picture, and if I'm correct, the same sentiment applies to you.


I agree the man is a "nutjob", by the way.


Cap

[| I, CWAS |]

CaptainCanada

Neo-Gnostic Libertine... I can only assume your motivation for posting the picture, and if I'm correct, the same sentiment applies to you.

Actually he is a funny looking guy, but you know I don't judge based on apperence.

[Noumenon]

Yes I'm aware but that was my position, technology negates the need for a lot of jobs, and this is only going to continue, completely reducing the industrial/manufacturing sector to minimism, then we have the service industry outsourcing many positions. Lets sat the work week was reduced ot 15 hours, assuming real wages are enough to live off of, and we a surplus population in the billions due to the length of life, with our week being 40 hours a week now, it would simply be 2 1/2 workers to make up that time slack in this world where we live 1000 years, however with techonology, and a surplus population of at least a billion, the market cannot possibly conform.

Its a myth that technology causes unemployment. If it did, why is our employment level virtually the same as it was in the 18th century? The fact is that consumer demand is potentially unlimited, and always outstrips the ability of producers to produce the things they want. When their ability to produce increases, so does consumer demand. In order to meet this new demand, more jobs are created.

Work hours go down as wealth increases not because there is less work to do, but because people are satisfied with doing less work. This happens precisely because real wages increase due to increases in the productivity of labor. So there is no assuming that real wages would be high enough to live off of. If work hours are reduced, its because real wages ARE high enough to live off of.

The surplus population is not a problem. The world population increased by 6 billion over the last century, yet living standards increased and employment didn't go drastically down.

Social Security would be done plain and simple, and in 10-25 years the economy is going to see a moderate to major reconstruction due to the baby boomers retiring, freeing up many positions, and due to a soon to be dearth , altering the pay scale, just imagine if the wouldn't be retiring for another 800 years.

Social security is going to tank no matter what. Its only a matter of time. If people start living 1000 years, there is simply no way we can support them in retirement. They will just have to work. If technology advances on the level this article predicts, it should be able to make old frail people healthy enough to work again.

What I see happening is a problem we have here and in most countries, where you have Ph.D's driving cabs to make ends meet, and with such as inundation of labor I would assume wages would be static, especially if we were to abolish the minimum wage.

What? I can't even begin to make sense of this.

[Garibaldi]

Something people seem to have forgotten, don't you think we'll be able to colonize space within a few centuries, if not decades? The average working hours will continue to drop, and we'll have more space because of the colonization. That would allow for an increase in production, of necessary and merely desired products.