First of all, retiring is only a viable option when society (and the insurance companies) know that you are going to kick the bucket (statistically) soon after starting to cash out on the retirement money.
"Retiring" as a concept will be abolished, because the only reason for retiring is growing too old to be a productive cog in the machinery.
Sidenote: I wonder how people would do things differently with regards to their work if they were, essentially, never going to die of age.
Of course, society would be a bit... different with people not dying of age - think of all the long-term investment issues. Plus Earth running out of space really really really quickly instead of just inevitably as it is now. What, you thought people would stop having children just because no one will die of age?
(For some speculation on how people might behave when they are longer lived, feel free to peek at some of R. A. Heinleins books about the Howard Families - "Methusaleh's Children" might be the most appropriate in this context)
The issue is that on the really important issues - when someone has screwed up, and doesn't want anyone else to know it, and is ready to go to some lengths to keep it hushed up, being able to offer anonymity is quite a good thing.
While there are people that have (and I hope, will) spoken out even though they knew they were going to suffer, not too many people are ready to do this.
This is where being able to offer anonymity comes into play, lowering the bar on reporting on things that seem to be wrong.
Now, you are correct (if I read you right) in arguing that it is not an absolute necessity for the press to report on stuff going wrong. I simply think (and claim) that it allows them on report on more stuff that goes wrong and often earlier than it would be otherwise.
Perhaps it is onerous, but at the same time, this was not Jane Doe at Accounting doing the deed, this was a person in his immediate neighborhood.
Why should he get more leniency than someone further down the chain? Saying "I did nothing, and made very sure I knew nothing" about something you obviously suspected was bad is not a good policy, unless of course only board members can do this and ordinary people can't, because then it becomes a different thing.
All I hear about board members is that they get such a high salary due to the responsibility they have and the impact their actions have, but when it comes to the hard decisions, they can suddenly just say "hey, I really didn't want to know about that shit, so I just ignored it lol."
They get paid for making decisions, not for ignoring stuff like this. Claiming "I didn't do anything, and thus did no wrong, because I made very *very* sure I couldn't know about it" is just evading responsibility for your job.
Sarf
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry.
First of all, retiring is only a viable option when society (and the insurance companies) know that you are going to kick the bucket (statistically) soon after starting to cash out on the retirement money.
"Retiring" as a concept will be abolished, because the only reason for retiring is growing too old to be a productive cog in the machinery.
Sidenote: I wonder how people would do things differently with regards to their work if they were, essentially, never going to die of age.
Of course, society would be a bit... different with people not dying of age - think of all the long-term investment issues. Plus Earth running out of space really really really quickly instead of just inevitably as it is now.
What, you thought people would stop having children just because no one will die of age?
(For some speculation on how people might behave when they are longer lived, feel free to peek at some of R. A. Heinleins books about the Howard Families - "Methusaleh's Children" might be the most appropriate in this context)
It's the Human Way (tm)!
:)
Tried and tested for thousands of years - why change a clearly winning concept?
The issue is that on the really important issues - when someone has screwed up, and doesn't want anyone else to know it, and is ready to go to some lengths to keep it hushed up, being able to offer anonymity is quite a good thing.
While there are people that have (and I hope, will) spoken out even though they knew they were going to suffer, not too many people are ready to do this.
This is where being able to offer anonymity comes into play, lowering the bar on reporting on things that seem to be wrong.
Now, you are correct (if I read you right) in arguing that it is not an absolute necessity for the press to report on stuff going wrong. I simply think (and claim) that it allows them on report on more stuff that goes wrong and often earlier than it would be otherwise.
Perhaps it is onerous, but at the same time, this was not Jane Doe at Accounting doing the deed, this was a person in his immediate neighborhood. Why should he get more leniency than someone further down the chain? Saying "I did nothing, and made very sure I knew nothing" about something you obviously suspected was bad is not a good policy, unless of course only board members can do this and ordinary people can't, because then it becomes a different thing. All I hear about board members is that they get such a high salary due to the responsibility they have and the impact their actions have, but when it comes to the hard decisions, they can suddenly just say "hey, I really didn't want to know about that shit, so I just ignored it lol." They get paid for making decisions, not for ignoring stuff like this. Claiming "I didn't do anything, and thus did no wrong, because I made very *very* sure I couldn't know about it" is just evading responsibility for your job. Sarf