The end of work + the end of aging ...

[PsychoBabble]

I came across an interesting short article on "The End of Aging" in FUTURISM.

I've given a bit of thought to "the end of work" -- that is, what happens to an Earth economy built mostly on consumerism ... when there are no longer enough jobs to support said consumerism?

One suggestion is moving to an economic Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI), or Universal Basic Income (UBI) model -- each some version of a guaranteed income to provide a floor of sustenance -- and creating more personal freedom to engage in work by/of choice vs necessity. There are many ideas about how this may spin out, none proven -- plus concerns about what happens to us emotionally/culturally when "work ethic" is by choice, and not a survival issue.

Beyond that, this recent Futurism article made me think about another aspect of this challenge -- either stand-alone, or in combination with UBI ...

What happens to our economy when people live damn near forever -- and fewer "replacements" are needed in the job market?

The aging article doesn't go into as much depth as I would like -- but it is the kind of topic we need some serious thinking about in society, vs. most of the other "don't steal MY cookies" nonsense we seem to spend our time on.

Our societies have been catapulted into a high-speed danger zone, because the normal pace of change that has historically allowed us to integrate these shifts has been overrun by the rapidity with which technology grows.

===

We Need to Prepare for a World Without Aging
https://futurism.com/we-need-to-prepare-for-a-world-without-aging/

Modern science is bringing us ever closer to a day when aging is no longer a concern. However, with our increasing life-spans come challenges and questions we must be prepared to face ...

... Would slowing aging — or even eliminating it — change what it means to be a human? Humans are already quite self-centered as a species (prioritizing our own survival and standard of living over the planet itself and many other species). The planet can only sustain so many humans comfortably, and it’s currently strained as it is. If fewer people died, that would crowd us even more.

There’s also the argument that new generations become more progressive and open to change versus older generations. Without the older population dying off, there’s less potential for different perspectives and new ideas. Dying also gives our lives meaning in regards to time — when time is a finite resource, we cherish it more.

From the opposite side, research into anti-aging will make us healthier in the last years of our lives, making healthcare less expensive for the elderly. Medical research has had to focus on many diseases and conditions, but if the focus is on aging itself, hopefully the potential to develop those diseases will diminish.

We can also greatly benefit from the experience and wisdom of older people as a society. It’s detrimental to science to ignore these avenues of research. Anti-aging research also can lead to other research, such as how to sustain bigger populations.

[Lanius]

1. Living longer is already creating problems, mainly because we've extended lifespan but

not health span - the length of time when a person is healthy and free of senescence. Now we have many folks living into their 80s and 90s but they're sick or disabled for 20-30 years, increasing health care costs and lowering quality of life.

If we were to eliminate aging and have an indefinite health span it would most certainly upend the social and economic orders. What would life be like it the rich never retired and the younger generations never had a chance to advance past a certain point in their careers? Also, what if you became paralyzed from the neck down and were ageless? Maybe medicine could heal you but not completely, and you'd live centuries with your disability.

Another question I have is: If humans don't age, then would we ever really grow up emotionally? Our personalities depend on our endocrine system and brain, both of which change as we age beyond our 20s. If humans end up being physically 20, 25 or 30 for centuries will they emotionally be "stuck" at that age?

However, no one will live forever; we'll still be susceptible to disease, poisons, violence, suicide and accidents. IIRC, some actuaries have predicted that -- based on the death rate of 25 year olds -- ageless people would live about 1,200 years, when they would die of some non-age-related event.

[Warpy]

2. The reason this planet is groaning under so many of us

is because we've stopped losing half or more of our children to disease, not because selfish people are living too long.

Aging sucks, but it does ready you for the inevitable. It came as a relief to my mother at 94 and my dad at 89.

The last thing I would wish on anyone is immortality in perpetual youth. Suicide would become a sacrament.

Oh, I know nobody under 50 is going to believe that. But having, say, 200 years of regret over stupid things you've done to build up, you'd probably have had enough. It would come far sooner if you'd been issued the kind of body I was.

[Lanius]

3. I agree. I think a lot of older folks are ready to go when they've lived to 80 or 90 or 100.

Eternal youth is the stuff of ancient mythology; it's something humans have always wanted. But IMO I think it's something that would ultimately lead to boredom and risky behavior, followed by a violent or painful death. Others would have a hard time dealing with so much loss over the years. I mean what would an ageless billionaire do if - at 300 years old - he lost all his money and had to live as a regular person for the next eight centuries?

Maybe I'm just a pessimist.

[Coventina]

4. I want to live to 100 as a young person, then just drop dead on a random day.

This whole chronic pain with arthritis and other age-related deterioration is why I don't want to live much longer (and, I'm under 50).

If they could come up with a way to solve the SUFFERING of aging, but we still had maybe just a slightly more extended life-span, that would be ideal, in my book.