Longevity...too much of a good thing?

[goddessodd]

I am sure that whatever means available to enhance longevity will NOT be available to everyone. Just look at AIDS victims in Africa…heathcare is out there, if you have the cash! What concerns me about this, aside from global ecological concerns, of course, is, that if wealth is a factor in longevity enhancement (as I believe it will be) what we will wind up with is a planet ruled by really old, really wealthy, white guys…come to think of it, I guess it wont be all that different from the way it is now!

[partly_warmer]

*Originally posted by goddessodd *
**…I can’t help but wonder whether this might have some unfortunate side effects on society. For example, as the workforce ages and retires, who will replace the older workers? Who will support Social Security? Will we be plagued by unprecedented population growth as the death rate slows? And the health care costs alone, for a population whose median age is 65 or so could bankrupt the wealthiest nation. If we do begin to regularly age to 120 and beyond, what will retirement age have to be to keep us in pension plans? I want to live a long time, but not if I have to work until I am 95! Any thoughts on this? **

I read a book 20 years ago, written perhaps in the 1960s, which I still have someplace, that claimed the biggest problem facing modern society was what to do with leisure time. That the average work week had dropped from something like 60 hours in 1900 to 36 hours; that the whole concept of retirement didn’t exist in 1900. As a result people today have huge amounts of disposable time, even before longer life is considered.

In terms of what this wonderful gift has meant to mankind, the extra time seems to be largely take up with TV, endless sports events, computer games, mass market books that are forgotten 10 years later… Well, at least the Internet is completely worthwhile…

What I find alarming, having wasted a good part of my life in things I have no defense for, is how much can be accomplished by someone determined, intelligent, and lucky by age 30. If one can’t do something important/interesting/worthwhile by 40, can one by 80? My pet fear in this regard is people who are 70 or 80 still holding positions of responsibility, making the same mediocre decisions they’ve been making for 30 years, resistant to progress, interested mostly in shoring up their entrenched position.

[godogsgo13]

I recommend the book, Wwelcome to the Monkey House" by Kurt Vonnegut. It gives a vivid portrayal of the future you describe. It is also wickedly funny too.

GDG

[goddessodd]

*Originally posted by partly_warmer *
[.

. If one can’t do something important/interesting/worthwhile by 40, can one by 80? **

Well, there are all sorts of renaissance men and women out there, how old was Gandhi? What about Mother Theresa? They were both doing a lot of good in the world in their “golden years” Some of us are just late bloomers. I think that most likely we will be a bunch of geezers and bats, sitting around reminiscing about how hard life used to be. (“Why, I remember eight track tapes…now THAT was music for you sonny!”)