Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Medicine Science

What Happens When the Average Lifespan is 150 Years? 904

First time accepted submitter Macgrrl writes "It was reported today in The Age newspaper that scientists believe they will have a drug within the next 5-10 years that will extend the average human lifespan to 150 years. Given the retirement age is 65, that would give you an extra 85 years, meaning you would probably have to extend the average working life to 100 or 120 years to prevent the economy becoming totally unbalanced and pensions running out. That assumes that the life extension is all 'good years', and not a prolonged period of dementia and physical decline. Would you want to live to 150? What do you see as being the most likely issues and what do you think you would do with all the extra years?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What Happens When the Average Lifespan is 150 Years?

Comments Filter:
  • Easy (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:09AM (#37737278)

    I'd spend all my time hitting those 80 year old cheerleaders!

    • Re:Easy (Score:4, Funny)

      by orangesquid ( 79734 ) <> on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:49AM (#37737664) Homepage Journal

      Life insurance will be more expensive, pay raises will be lower, doctors will own more yachts when they die, retirement age will be 116, there will be more conservatives and less social change, food and other resources will become scarce, there will be more population and everything that comes with it, more people will go to grad school, families will be bigger, family reunions will need more seating, more senators will be balding, viagra sales will skyrocket, and the year will be greater than or equal to 2036.

      Next question!

      • by quenda ( 644621 )

        More V14GRA spam.

      • You seem to be assuming sexual viabiliy will increasre proportionately. I doubt it will. So more people, but no larger families.
      • Re:Easy (Score:5, Interesting)

        by wwphx ( 225607 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @09:39AM (#37738238) Homepage
        It would totally change the basic paradigms of work. I know my (previous) boss resented having to pay for his employees to stay up-to-date on new tech, I can't imagine what corps will think when people potentially are working for them for a century. And I cannot imagine what it would do for promotion stagnancy.

        Me, personally, I do not want to live to 150. I turn 50 in a couple of months, and it turns out that I have an immune disorder that kicked in to high gear two years ago. In those two years, I've had over 200 infusions (twice a week) involving 4 needles in my abdomen for 90 minutes or so twice a week. I don't want to think about doing that for a hundred years. Yes, they might develop a cure (they will certainly improve treatment models), but I'm not expecting a cure in my (current) lifetime. They've been able to jump-start immune systems with gene therapy, but they've also had a tremendous increase in tumors in such patients. It's possible that an immune system could shut down to prevent the start/spread of tumors as a defensive mechanism.
        • by jafac ( 1449 )

          Many bosses resent having to pay for work period.

          I would want to live to be 150 - but you must define "live". If that's live with decrepitude. . . then you can keep your immortality potion. I assume that this thought-problem includes some kind of biological process that boosts physical health so that other age-related diseases are diminished. I've been dealing with arthritis since my teen years. Not pleasant - I guess I could do 150. But if this got worse, and I got crippled, that would suck. I don't wa

      • Re:Easy (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bberens ( 965711 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @10:23AM (#37738764)
        Actually, life insurance will be cheaper for most people because you'll be paying in longer.
  • Legalized euthanasia (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Well, you can't have such a sysyem without legalized euthanasia. Or you need a lot of homeless shelter.

    • Mind Uploading (Score:4, Interesting)

      by WillDraven ( 760005 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:39AM (#37737560) Homepage

      I would spend all my extra years working on mind uploading technology. I want to live for a very long time, uploaded into a spaceship exploring the universe. When your mind is software you can just alter your perception of time and fast forward through all the boring parts.

      • When your mind is software you can just alter your perception of time and fast forward through all the boring parts.

        Next thing you know it will be the end of the universe and you'll have fast forwarded through everything of substance!

    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      WE already have one it's call carousel!

      Your gem is blinking red, you are going to carousel right?

      • The young-uhns ain't gonna understand this. I'd be surprised if they even would recognize Farrah Fawcett-Majors or Michael York.

        As you exit my property, please see the large silvery gentleman ... his name is Box.
  • by kayumi ( 763841 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:10AM (#37737288)

    I think I would spend the next 165 years practising addition

  • by alphatel ( 1450715 ) * on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:10AM (#37737294)
    Spend all my medicare on pvp games and frag the bejesus out of everyone for the next 90 years.
  • the retirement age is 65. Don't expect that to last.
    • But there is no reason to think all those extra years of potential labor is needed. We already have more people than we need to do the available work.
      • by Surt ( 22457 )

        But in a bad economy, that's horrible news for the young. Older workers will hold onto jobs to try to fund their new lifespan (and remember, can't fire them once they're over 40 without some serious lawsuit risk). Younger workers won't be able to compete with their experience (and older workers can take paycuts if that's what it takes to keep the young person frozen out).

    • Re:Currently... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by beadfulthings ( 975812 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @09:16AM (#37737940) Journal

      Currently, a lot of people need to continue working until age 71 in order to receive their full Social Security. That includes most Boomers who are hitting sixty right about now. You can retire with diminished benefits starting at 62. You can begin manipulating and using your 401.k at age 58.

      As for me, I'd like to get to hold a grandchild or two, and then I'd be happy to move along. I was widowed (suddenly and too young) this past summer. It's gotten an interesting reaction from neighbors who are here from China to study. They're absolutely incensed that I didn't leave off working immediately and move in with one or the other of my two grown sons. Apparently my daughters in law are supposed to be taking care of me in addition to working at their regular jobs. The fact that I still have a meaningful job that brings in an income is incomprehensible to them. It's been a fascinating cultural discussion.

  • by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:13AM (#37737314)

    When the average age is 150 the average speed limit will be 15mph.

    The weather channel will become a 3D channel on cable and out perform the major networks.

    Dick Clark will be hosting New Year shows still.

    Starbucks will be sold to a bingo-chain.

    No one will ever be able to walk on anyone elses lawn ever again.

    • The news will start with "I remember when... ".

      The good old days will be 140 years ago, instead of just 60. Btw, people were much friendlier in the good old days, and also worked a lot harder.

      Sherry sales will explode, and sherry will outsell beer.

      Helping grannies cross the street becomes a full-time job.

      • by rwa2 ( 4391 ) *

        Hmm, it is an interesting thought... I think it was in the 1960s or something when people stopped dying of "old age" simply because the AMA started classifying them going to various forms of heart disease / cancer / etc.

        But as medicine might allow people to start living indefinitely, we might get more interesting trends. At some point, it may be statistically likely that everyone dies from horrible traffic accidents because there's simply no other way to go ;-)

        Don't really care to work out the math for th

        • We're still likely to lose 2/3rds of our population by 2150, if current fertility rates continue to trend downwards. When even a Catholic Country like Italy is seeing negative population growth now, and a third world country like Uganda has gone from 8 children per family to 3.1 children per family, be prepared for a much older and much more cynical world indeed.

          All this does is give us an extra 50 years before the baby boom becomes an utter bust.

    • by BigSes ( 1623417 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:44AM (#37737612)
      It might surprise you to know that Dick Clark was actually the test subject for this drug.
  • by VendettaMF ( 629699 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:14AM (#37737322) Homepage

    ... Ask me again in 300 years.

  • Not gonna happen. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oh2 ( 520684 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:16AM (#37737340) Homepage Journal
    The wear and tear on the body is such that even if you can increase the lifespan to a theoretical 150 years you wouldnt be very healthy for the last 90 or so years. You also need something that adresses the wear on the body. Our hearts arent made for 150 years of use and we build up various plaques and toxins in our bodies as time goes by. Even if we all lived under controlled and ideal circumstances the last seven decades would be pretty much seven decades of being eighty.
    • Re:Not gonna happen. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:31AM (#37737476) Journal
      A lot of these issues can already be addressed with treatments and replacements. Which raises interesting questions. Even if this medicine turns out to be affordable, the treatments to keep the body going beyond its designed lifespan most likely will be very expensive. So on what basis will this life-extending drug be given out? Will it only be issued in cases where it will help a person reach a natural age with a decent quality of life? Or will anyone able to pay for it be able to obtain it?

      There's already growing resentment against the fabled 1% who own almost everything... just imagine what will happen when people find out that "the rich" also get to live about 70 years longer than the rest of us. On the other hand, how fair is it to withhold life saving/extending treatment from someone willing and able to pay for it? (Assuming that one rich guy extending his life isn't going to affect the amount of healthcare available to the rest of us)
      • Re:Not gonna happen. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Lord Grey ( 463613 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @09:30AM (#37738112)

        Larry Niven is rubbing his hands with glee and saying, "I knew it!"

        ... Even if this medicine turns out to be affordable, the treatments to keep the body going beyond its designed lifespan most likely will be very expensive. So on what basis will this life-extending drug be given out? ... Or will anyone able to pay for it be able to obtain it?

        Niven's future problem revolved around the perfection of organ transplants. In a world where everything but the brain and spinal column can be successfully transplanted, and life thereby extended indefinitely, what kinds of problems would arise? Organlegging [] was one such problem.

        However, most of the problems actually had to do with the upper class hoarding the technology for themselves (the rich were the ones in power, which means they could pass new laws governing the technology, etc.). Niven's excellent The Jigsaw Man short story dealt with that from the "criminal's" point of view, and his book A Gift From Earth [] introduces an entire culture built around this problem (and what happens when better technology comes along to upset the applecart).

        While the problem is slightly different, Niven's ideas of the problems and consequences of this kind of technology are amazing. I heartily recommend reading his Known Space collection, which is where this problem is addressed.

      • On the bright side, if artists are living 150 years and producing for most of them, the copyright laws will finally seem sane again.

    • You also need something that adresses the wear on the body.

      Titanium and plastics. Works really well for about 30% of implant recipients - I hope that number goes up before I need them.

    • by jambox ( 1015589 )
      Yes but don't all those arguments apply to living to 80 already? I read somewhere that once your teeth start to fall out, you're meant to be dead already.
    • by vlm ( 69642 )

      The wear and tear on the body is such that even if you can increase the lifespan to a theoretical 150 years you wouldnt be very healthy for the last 90 or so years. You also need something that adresses the wear on the body.

      All my life the public assumption is the only way life can be extended is to add "bad years". All my life the only way I've seen to extend life in current practice is to add "good years". It seems self evident that if "everybody" dies at the physical equivalent of 80, the only way to make it to 90 is to live 80 chronological years while only causing 70 years of wear and tear. Don't sun tan, don't smoke, don't drink much alcohol, don't eat grains and sugars, eat lots of paleo/natural/organic foods...

      • Don't sun tan, don't smoke, don't drink much alcohol, don't eat grains and sugars, eat lots of paleo/natural/organic foods...

        I thought you said "good years".

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Wouldn't that be an implied part of making us live to 150? I looked up the stats for the recent story on the 115 year old. Here in Norway a male who was 80 in 1906-1910 could expect to live 5.90 years on average, a hundred years later 7.58 years. The same figures for women are 6.30 to 9.36 years. So the last 100 years has only stretched the maximum life span by 2-3 years, while the average lifespan has gone up 26 years.While the accounts of people living past 100 are questionable, we have quite a few record

      • by vlm ( 69642 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @09:29AM (#37738104)

        Unless we find a way to truly slow aging so you're like a 30yo @ 60, 50yo @ 100 and 75yo @ 150, I doubt we'll ever reach 150.

        We already have. I'm old enough, and I have a lifetime of experience of looking at women, or at least enough to know:

        1) The girls that smoke, drank, suntanned until they looked African despite Swedish ancestry, and eat tons of junk food currently look like AARP poster models. Like 20 years older than chronological. Some of its rather heartbreaking, I remember this one goddess, like Aphrodite walking the earth when she was about 20, who now has wrinkly motorcycle leathers for skin, starter emphysema, some cataract vision problems...

        2) The girls that lived a pretty granola lifestyle of non-smoking, not drinking too much, pale untanned skin, lots of organic food / farmers markets / salads, spend time indoors mostly, watch their weight, could almost pass for playboy models despite their age.

        When I was young I saw this in my girlfriend's moms. Some were pretty hot and young looking and frankly I'd date them, some looked more like grannies, and it had a lot more to do with lifestyle and diet than chronological age or genetics. My advice to the young men of /. is all chicks look hot when they're 19, so don't pay attention to that when wife shopping; examine how their moms look, because that's what you're gonna be waking up to in 20 years, assuming the marriage lasts, and depending mostly on the lifestyle they were brought up in, some 40ish women still look like goddesses and some like grannies.

        Trust me dude, we know how to make women look like they're 20 when they're 40, and how to make them look like 60 when they're 40.

        I have one non-smoking non-drinking sorta healthy eating female relative who's more active and "youthful" at 70 than my smoking drinking junk food eating relative at 50.

        • Trust me dude, we know how to make women look like they're 20 when they're 40, and how to make them look like 60 when they're 40.

          So true. My wife is is a pale-skinned, freckled redhead who ate healthy and never went out in the sun without a hat and sunscreen. Now at age 50 she is often mistaken for a 30 year-old.

          Her younger sister, however, spent her life trying to get a tan, ate junk and drank heavily. The younger sister looks like she's hitting 60, but she's only 45.

          Take care of yourself and that "live

        • by martas ( 1439879 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @10:49AM (#37739104)
          oh, what difference one apostrophe can make: "my girlfriend's moms" -> gay, possibly polygamous parents. "my girlfriends' moms" -> multiple girlfriends, one mom each... /grammar nazi
  • Only for the rich. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:19AM (#37737374)

    Only the Rich would have access to the drug at first. And that invites all sorts of pessimistic thoughts. Their money will be hoarded for longer, not benefiting the system. They'll probably try to argue the average life expectancy is up therefore we should cut everyone's social security benefits... RIAA/MPAA and ilk will argue we now need longer copyright terms -- patent holders will do the same...

  • Umm... (Score:3, Informative)

    by d3ac0n ( 715594 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:23AM (#37737400)

    you would probably have to extend the average working life to 100 or 120 years to prevent the economy becoming totally unbalanced

    I hate to break it to you, but having 65 as a retirement age has ALREADY made the economy totally unbalanced.

    Remember that the 65 retirement age was designed for a time when most people only lived to 50! If you made it to 65 you deserved a reward for actually surviving that long. Now almost everyone makes it to 65 and our Social support systems are taking up 50% (or more, depending on your country) of our GDP. Our economy all over the globe is in shambles trying to support a number of people the various welfare states were never designed to handle.

    Frankly we need to raise the retirement age to 80 NOW. Make the boomers work for another 25 years or retire on their own money. But us Gen X and down shouldn't be paying for it. When people start living to 150 (or longer) you can bump it to first 100, then 125.

    Assuming we haven't decided by then that the government just isn't properly equipped to take care of people in that manner and cancelled all the welfare programs. Or have slipped into a global social collapse and fallen back to 50 year lifespans and steam technology.

    • Re:Umm... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by composer777 ( 175489 ) * on Monday October 17, 2011 @09:40AM (#37738254)

      Yep, except you have to throw out the fact that the average worker is several times, in some cases, orders of magnitude more efficient and productive than they were when SS was originally created. The gains came about through better technology, longer working hours for many, less vacations, doubling the workforce by adding women, etc. So, where did all the productivity go? It certainly wasn't shared, that's for sure. It's gone to support billionaires rich enough to buy entire islands and form their own countries. It's part of why unemployment keeps rising (if people are more productive, and you are over-producing, why keep them on the payroll when you aren't paying them enough to buy their own products?).

      So, no, we won't HAVE TO raise the retirement age to 150. What we really need is to remodel the economic system in a way such that gains in efficiency are returned to workers, not owners. But, that means throwing out capitalism. Once that happens, things will become even MORE efficient, by leaps and bounds. Who would stay at work 4 hours if they could get it done in two? Right now, we incentivize people to be inefficient and many of them oblige us by dragging out a couple of hours of work into an 8 hour day. No one dares to do anything about it on a large scale, because people in power love capitalism, and a 50% unemployment rate would cause massive riots. So, they allow the rabble to keep themselves busy for 8-10 hours a day, so that they are too exhausted to get into trouble. Even with all that artificial inflation of work hours we still have problems finding enough "work" for everyone.

  • people will waste it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shadowrat ( 1069614 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:25AM (#37737416)
    A guy like Steve Jobs probably accomplished the most when he felt his time was severely limited. Stephen Hawking seems to have a similar motivation. I even find it hard to really put everything into a project when the deadline is still far away. If people think they are going to live twice as long, they'll probably just procrastinate 4x as much.
  • by vossman77 ( 300689 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:27AM (#37737434) Homepage

    While life expectancy [] has been consistently increasing in the modern era from 30 to almost 70 now, maximum life span [] has really not changed at all and stays at about 120 years. This true both for humans and laboratory rats, scientist are having difficulty increasing the maximum life span.

    We are going to need a medical break-through in order to push 150 years, but it is a good thought experiment, I just don't see it changing dramatically this century.

  • See, this drug is yet another way of extending copyright. All they have to do is keep the authors alive for another whole lifetime and they can keep their game rolling without much additional change.

    Okay, I joke a bit, but I can totally see such therapy restricted to the very rich and powerful to keep them in office and power. As it stands, the world cannot afford to have more old people than it already has.

  • Quality of life: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hartree ( 191324 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:31AM (#37737474)

    The main thing is quality of life. Extra years of infirmity, dementia and living in some kind of care facility would be no advantage.

    Extra years of good health would be. Not just to the individual, but to society. Training someone in a lot of professions is expensive. The decades of experience leave on retirement and have to be replaced.

    Stagnation won't be a big problem, IMHO. Though you'll have people around for longer, new people will be coming into a given workplace, just at a slower rate. New ideas will still be around, and frankly, most people aren't doing research science, but things that are existing skill based rather than innovation based. Slashdot is a bit of an anomaly compared to the rest of the world as it has a high prevelance of knowledge workers.

    Expect various pundits to say it's horrible and that no one should want to live that long. Of course, when they'd make the decision for themselves I suspect a lot would take the anti-aging drugs and then rationalize it somehow.

    As far as impact on population, it'd be some, but not as big as you'd think. If you don't have a low enough reproductive rate, you'll still overpopulate even with current life spans.

    • Expect various pundits to say it's horrible and that no one should want to live that long.

      I say gift them a loaded .357 magnum on their 80th birthday. When they're "tired o' livin'", they'll know what to do. See how many actually take you up on it.

  • I plan to keep moving. I'll find something I can do to keep active, maybe get into politics and run for congress. That way I could be senile, old and still get payed.

  • If I ever retire, it'll be because I'm sick, not because I've decided not to work any more. Even ignoring the economy, I like my job. In fact, I've liked almost every job I've ever had, no matter which industry. If it weren't for bad managers, I'd leave out the 'almost'.

    Sure, I'd like to have more time at home, but I've found I'm happier when I've got an external purpose for a good portion of my time. I don't mind working on other people's dreams, so long as I'm being productive.

    So if I live to be 150,

  • Well, let's see: we'll have a rapid increase in population from lagging deaths, increased fertility rates, so i'd say overpopulation will become a huge problem (Malthus, anyone?). We'd need to rapidly update our infrastructure to deal with such issues, completely overhaul our planning and laws to deal with such issues, whether it be social security and welfare policies to retirement planning, to incarceration.

    Then, of course, there could be the psychological issue - we've seen this before: the guy become

    • how would one cope with losing his friends/loved ones how either could not afford or would not want such medication?

      Maybe the same way you cope with people dying now? Also, some people may not care about such a thing happening.

  • by vlm ( 69642 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:36AM (#37737512)

    What about lack of upward mobility? All my life I've been told I'm being held back because of the huge cohort of baby boomers who will eventually retire and then my generation gets to shine. Its finally starting to happen, slowly. What happens socially when the retirement age goes from 60 to 120, meaning I/we have to sit thru another 60 excruciatingly boring years?

    Another problem is if you thought income inequality was bad, wait until you see balance sheet inequality. So a college degree used to mean an extra average of $25/yr income (used to, now it just means unemployment plus student loans instead of just unemployment, and the receptionist and your realtor are now required to have English degrees or MBAs). Over 40 working years that delta adds up to lets say a million bucks. Over 100 years, it adds up to 2.5 million bucks. So I'd expect the education bubble to explode upwards even more.

    Another problem is no nation has more criminals than the USA. Do they get treatment? Should a 20 year old murder who got life meaning a 60 year sentence be released at 80, or not medicated so he dies at 80, or held until he's 120 or ? Another problem is the goal of the prison industrial complex is to make, say, 3% of the population felons per decade. If people only live as adults for maybe 50 years, that means 15% of the population dies after being imprisoned and they never work inside the legit economy again. What happens when people live to 150, that means 45% of the population gets felonized.

  • Why stop at 150 ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cobbaut ( 232092 ) <> on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:39AM (#37737540) Homepage Journal

    I would do my best to stay healthy and hope for medicine and robotics to improve so any organ that fails can be replaced.
    Then 100 years from now, in the year 2111 someone will come up with a way to get our lifespan up to 250.
    Why die at all when we can continue to live in a robot-body that for all practical purposes is indistinguishable from our current body ?

  • And I think we'd see a huge increase in suicides of the over-70s. 35-45 years of work drives a lot of people to despair already, doubling that would push them over the edge (it sure would with me)

    That's before even considering that thought of the extra time just being spent dealing with age related illness. Nobody is going to want to spend 70 years (half their life!) basically dying.

  • If I could keep my physical shape and my marbles I would see running out of things to do to keep busy as a problem. To combat that I would expect to see 95 year olds going back to University, and people having extremely varied careers like being a doctor, then an engineer, then taking 10 years out to lay bricks. The question I would have is would it work? Given that the one thing I would like to do in my life is to explore another planet and the technology to do that is centuries away, would I feel fulfill

  • by mbone ( 558574 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @08:54AM (#37737720)

    You know who will get this treatment first and best - the "1%." This will lead pretty directly to some really old CEOs - imagine a 150 year old Rupert Murdoch, still running Fox in 2081, or Steve Ballmer still running Microsoft in 2106

  • Big inequalities (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hipp5 ( 1635263 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @09:10AM (#37737878)
    I suspect that there will be a HUGE spread of inequality between the old and the young. First of all, the increased retirement age will mean it takes a lot longer for positions to open up. Young people will be stuck waiting for their turn to be a teacher or urban planner or whatever. Second, inheritances won't come at a time when they're particularly useful. Currently in western society you get an inheritance (if there is one) anywhere from the time when you're getting married to the time when your last children are going to university. The years between these two events are the years where you have some of your biggest capital expenses (wedding, buying a house, cost of having children, sending kids to uni, etc.) and inheritances tend to help with at least one of these things and reduce the financial strain on the family. Now people will get them at the age of 110 instead, which means they're going to buy a boat instead of earlier times when it would reduce financial strain. Third: compound interest. People who make sound investments at the age of 25 will be absolutely loaded by the age of 150. This in turn increases the lobbying power of old people. The AARP is already a huge lobbying force in the United States. What happens when enough old people are gazillionaires that they basically set policy (answer: I doubt it will be to the benefit of the young).
    • by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @10:08AM (#37738566) Homepage Journal

      You are stuck thinking about 150 year average life span in a 75 year average life span society.

      If the lifespan increases dramatically, so will the population, and this would mean more economic opportunities, not less.

      There will be more demand for food and energy and shelter and entertainment and robots and computers and phones and pills and cars and travel and vacation and prostitutes etc.etc.etc., there will be more demand, not less.

      When society increases it creates more opportunity to satisfy all sorts of various demands, and if finally the governments are put into their right place - they should know their place and be hit on the head repeatedly until they occupy their niche, the economy will grow, not shrink.

      A longer time to wait for an opening at company? What a slave mentality thinking. Start your own goddamn company catering to all this new demands and come up with your own solutions and sell that into the ever increasing markets.

      People don't understand that individuals are not liability, they are assets and resources and markets.

  • by laron ( 102608 ) on Monday October 17, 2011 @10:13AM (#37738656)

    I don't think this miracle drug would change the world all that much. If you think of "death by old age" as the finishing line in the game of life, few people actually reach it. Most seem to die of causes that will probably not be affected by this drug, i. e. cancer, heart diseases, accidents, suicides...
    Especially the later could seem rather attractive once you had to bury your spouse and your children.

"You can have my Unix system when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." -- Cal Keegan