On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 12:13:16PM +0100, B. L. Krieger wrote: > >the key is the rapidity of the change. > > true, but still till these effects stop worldwide population growth new > factors will arise (continous age increase, alternative methods of
It is not obvious SENS is going to work. It is also questionable that primate biology can keep a person a century in the workplace. Already 50-year olds are virtually unemployable in the modern economy, while the official retirement age has been bumped up to 67 years. It will be 70 soon, so how do you feed a large fraction of your populace clothed, fed, and in good health? The health cost explosion is not sustainable. Socities are already cutting corners in health care, and soon this will become massive. The result is a two-tier society, with a minimal level of health care (somewhat below of that today) and virtually unlimited health care for Richistan citizens. > reproduction, etc.). policies would best aim for a slowing down of the > human world population. if at some point we end up having 'only' five Slowing down is good. Just not within 20-30 years. That will make most of the developing world run into terrible problems, if you imagine a pyramid suddenly collapsing to a christmas tree, and moving upwards. > billion people living around here it would not be that bad after all. also > we might find ouselves still contributing to the world economy at the age > of 80. How? I'm 41, in good health, taking health supplements, and in IT that's dinosaur age. Should I lose my current job I will have trouble finding another, especially one I can feed my family with. How young people today are supposed to finance a house and build a family when starting from scratch is beyond me. For most it will remain a dream. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
