Oops, thought I was in GD. Sorry.
And why do they show up in Internet address lists? The positives:
thousands of miles isolation in the southern ocean= no bacteria , viruses, pollution.
The downside: boring!
Something like the oppositite of a vacation?
I think Singapore must be pretty high up the list - fantastic healthcare, no hurricanes, incredibly low crime rate. Of course there’s danger of execution if you’re naughty, and a mild tsunami threat, but otherwise, it’s a very safe place to live.
Think of it as an opportunity to learn something new that is useful to the world.
Hey, I suppose I’d prefer to spend my time in the Caribbean than extracting crude from sand in British Columbia, or farming in Kansas. But if that’s what was required of me for a few hundred years to contribute my share to the public weal, I’d do so gladly, relatively certain in the knowledge that there would be thousands of other years in order to learn different stuff, and contribute still more.
Trouble is, with the current lifespan, most people have to choose one thing and stick with it, knowing that it may well be the only thing in which they ever have an opportunity to achieve any expertise.
According to this no place in the US is 100% safe from natural disasters. That said the safest place in the US is Honolulu, Hawaii.
- Honolulu, Hawaii
- Boise City, Idaho
- Santa Fe, N.M.
- Yakima, Wash.
- Spokane, Wash.
- Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, Wash.
- Medford-Ashland, Ore.
- Corvallis, Ore.
- Salem, Ore.
- Las Cruces, N.M.
Hang on just a second. Your plan for population reduction starts off by making everyone live effectively for ever? At that point the population will start exploding, not shrinking. Unless you prevent people from having any children at all, or just shoot all the people you don’t want to put up with for centuries. I favour the latter - if we shoot all the dumb and/or annoying people in the world, there should be just enough left to provide two sports teams and a decent-sized stadiumful to cheer them on.
Yes, so I can fuck them over again 
Actually, most people change careers several times in their lifetime.
I think it’s time for a reality check here since I believe the OP is quite young and this thread is decending deeper into ridiculous fantasy with each post.
-
We humans are not going to extend our lifespans by orders of magnitude within the lifespan of anyone alive today.
-
Assuming you have from 18-65, that gives you 47 years to dabble in various careers and whatnot. Plenty of time to try and master different things.
-
Most of the dangers to humans comes from other humans or ourselves - violent crime, war, accidents, lifestyle related disease, etc. It doesn’t matter where you live because if there are other people living there, you are much more likely to be hit by a car or something than be killed by a volcano or earthquake.
-
The current system works fine. People choose where they want to live based on where the jobs are, their climate preferences and how much risk they are willing to accept. It certainly is better than some insane scheme to create a utopian city, engineer the inhabitants to live 1000 years and wipe out the rest of humanity.
Government-sponsored eugenic research, forced mass relocations of people, isolated labor camps . . . this is sounding kinda familiar, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. . .
That’s a sad kind of perspective, even with the smilie at the end.
Sure, they might just, and might end up doing a half-assed job in every endeavor they take on because there simply isn’t enough time to do anything really well. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t change careers, or that they can’t make an adequate living at whatever they choose. I’d just rather see people working at anything for centuries/millennia rather than just a decade or two.
I’m well into middle age, at least by the prevailing standards of human lifespan. So is Aubrey de Grey. But let’s discuss the “ridiculous fantasy” part a little further…
Maybe we will accomplish this in our own lifetime, and maybe we won’t. To say that it simply can’t happen in our lifetime is tantamount to someone in, say, 1875, saying that man will never build a machine that can propel him safely through the air to different places, because the idea had clearly been around for a long time, and hadn’t yet been accomplished.
Oh, and besides that, that if man were meant to fly he would have been born with wings. And that we shouldn’t do it because people might die in the effort (which they most certainly did, and continue to). Also, God might become upset with trying to do anything so “unnatural” as to fly.
Regardless, the point is to keep trying, as we always have done, I would say ever since we became aware of our mortality. We progressed rather slowly for several million years to nearly double our lifepan by 1900, and over the last 100 or so years now live about 3-4 times longer (on average and in technologically advanced countries) than we did when we first huddled together around a fire.
Sure. And hundreds/thousands of years is a lot longer.
All quite true, except that there are also a number of natural disasters that could wipe most or us all us out in a pretty short period of time, and I think it would be best to avoid those as much as possible.
But take the issue of a big piece of flotsam from outer space striking the Earth. It still seems very unlikely, but it appears to have happened 5-7 time in the past, and it might just happen again. In fact, we appear to be a little overdue for such a mass extinction.
In a delicious twist of irony, the very kind of device that we created to destroy each other (nuclear weaponry) has been proposed as one possible means to destroy or divert such an extraterrestrial object.
Of course, we need to spot it first, and then get at it. But all of that outer space is really, really big, and there is a lot of crap floating around relatively nearby that we can’t keep very close track of. We’re trying to keep track of it now, to the degree that we are able, but I would much rather have people who live much longer working on this, and refining the technique, than ones who have just a handful of decades, at most.
The current “system” works as well as it does, but I wouldn’t call it “fine” (nor even dandy) just because it’s the best we have managed to accomplish to this point. There have been people saying “Things are fine as they are,” all throughout human history, and things have continued to change, many times in ways once believed utterly impossible and absurd even to consider, much less persue.
I didn’t say anything about an “insane scheme,” nor anything about a “utopian city,” nor anything about “[wiping] out the rest of humanity.” Those are extreme and violent thoughts. How could you think such things in response to the prospect of more life, to stopping the slaughter of aging and disease that removes more than 100,000 of us every single day? www.sens.org can inform you, as well as dissenting opinions from the Technology Review out of MIT.
You see, I think that a person’s initial reaction to the prospect of a massively extended human lifespan reflects upon how they experience their own life, and their overall regard for humanity in the first place. Life is painful to come into (for both mother and child), often quite painful to leave, and some of the stuff that happens in between those events, whew!
But I like humanity, and am impressed by all we’ve accomplished so far. I think we’ve got real potential, and have shown it on occasion! I generally experience my own life as pleasurable, too, so I’d like to mine go on, at least if I could be in decent health throughout. I want to be able to enjoy it all for longer, and to contribute more.
How about you?
I said nothing about any of the above. You did. I believe that humanity is capable of better than that. Do you?
Again, that initial reaction to the prospect of massively extended human life, it says so much…
Very interesting. Thank you.
Excellent! Turns out I live in one of the safest regions of the US!
No.
Google “Sweden”+“suicide”
Boring? I haven’t been but have always wanted to visit at least one of those countries.
But isn’t it interesting how health and boredom are considered the same to some?
Maybe it’s based on past frequency of natural disasters, but couldn’t just one tsunami or something wipe Honolulu out?
Pfft. Uninhabitable. Just try spending a single winter there without shelter. If it weren’t for very well-planned technology and food production, everybody there would die in short order. It’s like saying the moon is a safe place.
Know of anyone who died there? Hmmmm? I didn’t think so.
Tris
What are you on about? Scandinavia has been inhabited for about 9,000 years. If a bunch of Pelaeolithic hunter-gatherers can manage to exist there with technoloy no more sophisticated than fire, sharp rocks and animal skins, then I think it’s not too much of a stretch to say that people can live there in the future.