You can't really do this with tinder so I basically turned tinder into an app like the main article is talking about. I have 3 kids. I'm attractive and my kids are still at the adorable stage but 3 kids is still a dealbreaker for most so I created a tinder account and made my picture a picture of me and my 3 kids. I then clicked "yes" on every single photo just to see what I got. A week later, after clicking on some 200 photos, I've received about 16 people who clicked on me. Some I'm not interested in but it has been interesting as it has given me an idea of what type of person I can attract with 3 kids.
Although it would make more sense to first build one in antartica, the sahara, or the bottom of the ocean and it would probably be a small fraction of the cost, it would still probably be easier to get funding for one on mars. The only way I see of getting funding for one on earth would be using mars as an excuse. Even if we did decide to build a biodome for 100k people in antartica (which is the closest to mars conditions), there is currently no reason to go thru the extra expense of making it 100% airtight. Even a biodome under the ocean would be cheaper to build with ventilation than with fullblown air factories.
Hedging our bets would be sending high speed one-way generational ships out of this solar system. Mars is not much of a hedge. Even if mars was fully self sufficient, many of the most likely killers like nuclear war probably wouldn't spare a colony on mars. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it though. I think one of the greatest benefits would be learning to run a full blown biosphere so when we finally damage our current biosphere beyond repair at least we know how to create glass cities to live in.
When I graduated from college I had multiple credit cards, one of which had a limit of 24k. Total was probably close to 40k. At the time, my annual income was about 12k. Not sure if it was the fact that I was a college student or that I used my credit card to pay my school bills but it definitely wasn't from verified income.
Second example: I had a close friend who bought a 180k house with less than 15k of documented income (I know because I wrote his paycheck). In his case, he was actually able to afford it because he was getting undocumented income from overseas but the loan officer didn't know that. The only thing on paper was the 15k.
They've tightened down on both credit card limits and house loans since the last credit bust so these extremes and things like "liars loans" might not exist anymore but I know of alot more crazy example like this before the bust. Since the bust though they have even started reducing limits on already issued cards so it may not be possible anymore but if I had to guess, the practice of lining the college streets with free tshirts if you signup for a credit card probably still happens as they know that the college kids will likely eventually graduate and get a job and also have a parent that will likely bail them out.
India might barely make the cut of 3rd world but there's no comparison between India and the places where Ebola is currently rampant. The per capita of liberia is $400 while india is over $1500 not to mention india's goverment and economy is infinitely more stable. Even in places like guatemala (which I visited last year and is also infinitely more stable than liberia) a majority of cell phones are prepaid. Less than 50% of the people in liberia even have cell phones. So yes, some of the "rising 3rd world countries" like india and guatemala have some credit available but nothing close to the US where someone can buy a house on credit or get credit cards with limits that grossly exceed their annual income.
Then lets say your neighbor is full of complete fucktards that spend more money then they have, slack off doing nothing half the time, enact dumb counter productive laws, and generally make every mistake possible one after the other...
This sounds alot more like the USA. In most 3rd world countries, credit is almost non-existent so spending more than you have isn't even an option neither is being a slacker.
You see, if you are a utility, sometimes you have to PAY if you want to send electricity to the grid.
I've heard of this but I don't understand it. Surely there is something you can do with it. Heat water, run a pump backwards, etc.. and if you still can't find anything to do with it, why not just create a pretty light show or melt some rock. Even if you do have excess electricity because you can't slow down production, it makes no sense that you could figure out a free way to disipate it.
"the reason is most likely because water is so cheap " that's the problem the world over in developed nations. Total wasters. Its an argument also used by the people who do not want to upgrade from fossil fuels - its cheaper to have the status quo (at the moment, they don't care about the long term)
There is a huge difference between wasting fossil fuels and "wasting" water. Water is a renewable resource. If you're not somewhere where the water is being depleted then why does it matter how much water you use? The water you use on your lawn gets recycled right back into the groundwater and evaporates right back into the clouds.
Places where there is limited water or they are depleting the water table are a completely different story but many places in the USA (like where I like in Missouri), we have plenty of water and we have the same amount of water this year as we did 50 years ago. The only thing "wasting" water does in Missouri is causes slightly more wasting of the resources needed to purify the water but the water itself is a completely renewable resource with plenty of excess capacity which regenerates considerably faster than we can possibly ever use it so who cares if someone "wastes" a little.
You have no expectation of "privacy" on someone else's property (or in it, as the case may be.)
I disagree. If I borrow my friend's car (or weekend home), I know it's his property, but I have the basic assumption that he will not be recording my conversations and/or what I do with my girlfriend in his bedroom. Just because you own something and you let someone borrow or drive it doesn't mean they give up all rights to presumed privacy. If that was the case then motels could install cameras in every room and shower and it would be legal.
the best way is to use grey water from the showers and hand basins to flush toilets, it should be a crime to use drinking water to flush a toilet
I agree completely with this but at least in the USA I've never seen a house designed to store the runoff from the shower or sinks for this use and again, the reason is most likely because water is so cheap in the USA that it's not worth the extra cost to install the extra plumbing.
I strongly recommend you talk to a non-interested financial advisor about this (ie, NOT a bank official).
You're joking right? We're talking about someone making $400 a week and you want them to go talk to a neutral financial advisor. How are they going to pay for this financial advisor because pretty much the only financial advisors that work for free are the ones that are trying to sell you something. I know, it's hard to believe, but someone working at minimum wage probably doesn't have access to a financial advisor, a friend with a second car to loan them, and to alot of them even the idea of having anything left over to "save" is almost a foreign concept.
I don't know why Americans don't have a dual flush system on their toilets like all of Europe does.
Because most americans would always use the "big flush" anyways. Water is too cheap in the USA and water saving devices are worthless in this context. If you need to save water, the best way to actually save water is to make the consumer actually want to save water. Many places in the USA, water saving is a joke as there is plenty of water. In the places where there actually is a water shortage problem then they need to ration it per person and charge higher and higher tiers for people that use more than the average. Basically, there needs to be a luxury tax on excess water consumption. In most place toilets aren't the problem but rather it's all the swimming pools, lawn sprinklers, and industrial uses.
Um, payday loans are the definition of predatory loans. Most states have regulated these loans, as they will with these vehicle devices. I't going to take a while, though.
There is nothing inherently predatory about payday loans. Many employers do paycheck advances which might have zero or nominal interest. It's technically a payday loan. Also, just charging a reasonable interest rate for the risk isn't predatory. It's predatory practices like high interest or setting terms so they get stuck in a cycle that make it predatory not the type of the loan. Loaning money to people who are high risk isn't predatory, it's the taking advantage of them with rediculous terms because they have no other choice that is predatory.
I have "poor" friends who eke an additional 8-10 years out of a $3000 minivan they saved up and paid cash for and don't just rush out and buy a new car because this one's old and might break down some time.
Your definition of poor is a little different than my definition. What you're describing is what I typically call "working class" or "lower middle class" Your so called "poor" friends are not the people these type of devices are usually targetted at. These type of devices are generally not targetted at people buying new cars. These type of devices are targetting at people who can't even afford a $3000 car but rather are trying to finance a $700 car with payments of $50 per week.
Absolutely right, and in that situation you shouldnt even glance at a loan.
If you're making minimum wage and lucky enough to have a fulltime job then you're gross is still under $400 a week. A loan is about the only way you're going to be able to buy a car without either not eating or not paying your rent. Now, you could argue that someone on minimum wage shouldn't own a car but in many situations that's not realistic as it severely limits the type of jobs you can get. Also, most people who are using payday cash loan places are probably in a situation where either they don't have a support network or their friends are just as bad off as they are so even "bumming a ride" isn't a legitimate option.
There are entire organizations dedicated to "microloans" for people in 3rd world countries. Loans aren't inherently bad even at high interest if they are short-term and used for the right reason.
After I stopped building computers for family members I started referring them all to dell. The reason I did this is that dell seemed to have a minimum quality unlike other companies. Until they started selling netbooks, the cheapest computers on dell were always midrange computer at a decent price with decent reliability. Walmart on the other hand tended to sell stuff that was 3 years old technology and practically obsolete before you unboxed it and sometimes had horrible reliability issues and zero customer support.
For many, debt is a way of life. In that hypothetical situation you have no way out.
I disagree completely. The point of the hypothetical situation I described is that this so called "predatory lender", if used correctly, is a way out. In my hypothetical situation, I just landed a job, all I need is a car. So finding a payday cash loan place or a car dealership to front me the $500 to buy a car is all I need to get to my first paycheck. Used correctly, payday cash loan places actually provide a valuable service by providing a way for someone who has no other way of getting money to get a few hundred dollars to get back on their feet. The problem is that the majority of the payday cash loan customers are not "once in a lifetime" or even "once every five year" type users but are people who are repeat users.
Ok, make them optional. As a consumer needing a car to get to work, would you choose the car with the "$200 payment and 30% interest" or "$100 payment, 10% interest, and remote shutoff" Unless you were blatantly planning on not paying your bill, you are going to choose the later.
In theory, a device like this would allow a company to sell cars with lower interest and lower payments than their competitors therefore benefiting the people who have ruined their credits.
The only thing I might add is that they should get a 24 hour warning of the shutoff and the shutoff should happen at a specific time like 2am but I think a device like this isn't necessarily a bad idea for people with zero credit and needs a car for work.
How do you define predatory? Let's say I lose my job and burn thru my savings and then my car breaks down. I'm late on my mortgage and have maxed out my credit card. Yes, I did it mostly to myself, but now let's say I do manage to find a job and don't live in a big city and need to get to work. I'm too risky for someone to give me a loan but with one of these devices someone who otherwise would not sell me a car might be willing to take that risk. Is this a predator because they are selling me a car when noone else will? Same with payday cash loan places. They are willing to loan money to people when banks won't. In exchange they charge considerably higher interest rates but still probably better than getting a loan from a loan shark that gets you to pay him back with a baseball bat. Desparate people do desparate things. You can't eliminate predatory loans without eliminating desparate people. It's much better to regulate it than outlaw it and sometimes even people who aren't living incorrectly come up short of money when they need it most.
That's the problem with liberals like Gates. They are very good at telling others how to be responsible citizens but consider themselves exempt from that
Unfortunately, I think it's at least partially to do with how corporations are run in the USA. Bill Gates might be generous and want to donate his personal time/money. Even a corporation might be generous and can donate a percentage to charity but when it comes to actually "running" the company then you are suppose to do what is in the best interest of the company and shareholders so corporations do everything unethical under the sun as long as it's legal.
Maybe a solution would be to fine companies for violating the "spirit of the law" instead of just violating the "letter of the law" because everyone knows that apple, google, starbucks, etc... aren't really running the bulk of their business in Ireland and the cayman islands.
On the other hand, as related to the employment issue, it makes sense that if you need more employees and can't hire them in the USA and you're a multinational corporation that you would hire them at a branch office in a country that you can find them in. It's just stating a fact.
Oh, and I forgot a big one. Big business. Slashdot tends to be rather negative towards big business as well while traditional "conservatives" are usually pro business.
If the conservatives didn't have the overwhelming majority voice here then why do all the front page articles sway to their side when they are about political topics?
I know it's hard to believe but there are more than 2 sides to the political spectrum. There's not just conservatives and liberals. You're probably right that the majority of slashdot is "anti nanny state" but that doesn't mean that the majority are conservatives. The "anti nanny state" people are a mixture of anarchists, libertarians, conservatives, independents, and probably a few other groups I'm forgetting.
If you want proof that slashdot is not majority conservative then look at how slashdot responds to issues like drug laws, global warming, evolution, the big bang, gay marriage, or anything religious and see if you still have the same opinion.
Why is apple so obsessed with thin? If apple doubled the thickness it would still be a rather thin phone. It could then double the battery life, make it waterproof, beef up the shock protection and have room for a better camera. As has been noted, the current iphone is so thin that the camera sticks out. At least make it that thick. Heck, it might even be able to add an option for a keyboard. I don't see anyone saying that their iphone is too thick but I do know alot of people who would like a smartphone with a longer battery life so why would apple make a phone even thinner instead of using that extra space for a larger battery and other features that people actually want and are willing to pay for?
I agree completely. Either life expectancy stays about the same or we find a cure for aging and people start to live indefinitely. If it's the latter then we have additional issues to deal with like being able to afford the cure, overpopulation, war, etc... which might keep the average life expectancy down for reasons other than aging.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't really do this with tinder so I basically turned tinder into an app like the main article is talking about.
I have 3 kids. I'm attractive and my kids are still at the adorable stage but 3 kids is still a dealbreaker for most
so I created a tinder account and made my picture a picture of me and my 3 kids. I then clicked "yes" on every
single photo just to see what I got. A week later, after clicking on some 200 photos, I've received about 16 people
who clicked on me. Some I'm not interested in but it has been interesting as it has given me an idea of what type
of person I can attract with 3 kids.
Why not make a biosphere on Earth ?
Although it would make more sense to first build one in antartica, the sahara, or the bottom of the ocean
and it would probably be a small fraction of the cost, it would still probably be easier to get funding for
one on mars. The only way I see of getting funding for one on earth would be using mars as an excuse.
Even if we did decide to build a biodome for 100k people in antartica (which is the closest to mars conditions),
there is currently no reason to go thru the extra expense of making it 100% airtight. Even a biodome under
the ocean would be cheaper to build with ventilation than with fullblown air factories.
We can hedge our bets, though.
Hedging our bets would be sending high speed one-way generational ships out of this solar system.
Mars is not much of a hedge. Even if mars was fully self sufficient, many of the most likely killers
like nuclear war probably wouldn't spare a colony on mars. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it though.
I think one of the greatest benefits would be learning to run a full blown biosphere so when we finally
damage our current biosphere beyond repair at least we know how to create glass cities to live in.
When I graduated from college I had multiple credit cards, one of which had a limit of 24k. Total was probably close to 40k.
At the time, my annual income was about 12k. Not sure if it was the fact that I was a college student or that I used my credit
card to pay my school bills but it definitely wasn't from verified income.
Second example: I had a close friend who bought a 180k house with less than 15k of documented income (I know because I
wrote his paycheck). In his case, he was actually able to afford it because he was getting undocumented income from
overseas but the loan officer didn't know that. The only thing on paper was the 15k.
They've tightened down on both credit card limits and house loans since the last credit bust so these extremes and
things like "liars loans" might not exist anymore but I know of alot more crazy example like this before the bust.
Since the bust though they have even started reducing limits on already issued cards so it may not be possible anymore
but if I had to guess, the practice of lining the college streets with free tshirts if you signup for a credit card probably
still happens as they know that the college kids will likely eventually graduate and get a job and also have a parent that
will likely bail them out.
India might barely make the cut of 3rd world but there's no comparison between India and the places where Ebola is currently rampant.
The per capita of liberia is $400 while india is over $1500 not to mention india's goverment and economy is infinitely more stable.
Even in places like guatemala (which I visited last year and is also infinitely more stable than liberia) a majority of cell phones are
prepaid. Less than 50% of the people in liberia even have cell phones. So yes, some of the "rising 3rd world countries" like
india and guatemala have some credit available but nothing close to the US where someone can buy a house on credit or get
credit cards with limits that grossly exceed their annual income.
Then lets say your neighbor is full of complete fucktards that spend more money then they have, slack off doing nothing half the time, enact dumb counter productive laws, and generally make every mistake possible one after the other...
This sounds alot more like the USA. In most 3rd world countries, credit is almost non-existent so spending more than you have isn't even an option neither
is being a slacker.
You see, if you are a utility, sometimes you have to PAY if you want to send electricity to the grid.
I've heard of this but I don't understand it. Surely there is something you can do with it. Heat water, run a pump backwards, etc..
and if you still can't find anything to do with it, why not just create a pretty light show or melt some rock. Even if you do have
excess electricity because you can't slow down production, it makes no sense that you could figure out a free way to disipate it.
"the reason is most likely because water is so cheap " that's the problem the world over in developed nations. Total wasters. Its an argument also used by the people who do not want to upgrade from fossil fuels - its cheaper to have the status quo (at the moment, they don't care about the long term)
There is a huge difference between wasting fossil fuels and "wasting" water. Water is a renewable resource. If you're not
somewhere where the water is being depleted then why does it matter how much water you use? The water you use on
your lawn gets recycled right back into the groundwater and evaporates right back into the clouds.
Places where there is limited water or they are depleting the water table are a completely different story but many places
in the USA (like where I like in Missouri), we have plenty of water and we have the same amount of water this year as we
did 50 years ago. The only thing "wasting" water does in Missouri is causes slightly more wasting of the resources needed
to purify the water but the water itself is a completely renewable resource with plenty of excess capacity which regenerates
considerably faster than we can possibly ever use it so who cares if someone "wastes" a little.
You have no expectation of "privacy" on someone else's property (or in it, as the case may be.)
I disagree. If I borrow my friend's car (or weekend home), I know it's his property, but I have the basic assumption that
he will not be recording my conversations and/or what I do with my girlfriend in his bedroom. Just because you own
something and you let someone borrow or drive it doesn't mean they give up all rights to presumed privacy. If that was
the case then motels could install cameras in every room and shower and it would be legal.
the best way is to use grey water from the showers and hand basins to flush toilets, it should be a crime to use drinking water to flush a toilet
I agree completely with this but at least in the USA I've never seen a house designed to store the runoff from the shower or sinks for this use
and again, the reason is most likely because water is so cheap in the USA that it's not worth the extra cost to install the extra plumbing.
I strongly recommend you talk to a non-interested financial advisor about this (ie, NOT a bank official).
You're joking right? We're talking about someone making $400 a week and you want them to go talk to a neutral financial advisor.
How are they going to pay for this financial advisor because pretty much the only financial advisors that work for free are the ones
that are trying to sell you something. I know, it's hard to believe, but someone working at minimum wage probably doesn't have
access to a financial advisor, a friend with a second car to loan them, and to alot of them even the idea of having anything left
over to "save" is almost a foreign concept.
I don't know why Americans don't have a dual flush system on their toilets like all of Europe does.
Because most americans would always use the "big flush" anyways. Water is too cheap in the USA and water saving devices are
worthless in this context. If you need to save water, the best way to actually save water is to make the consumer actually want to
save water. Many places in the USA, water saving is a joke as there is plenty of water. In the places where there actually is a
water shortage problem then they need to ration it per person and charge higher and higher tiers for people that use more than the
average. Basically, there needs to be a luxury tax on excess water consumption. In most place toilets aren't the problem but
rather it's all the swimming pools, lawn sprinklers, and industrial uses.
Um, payday loans are the definition of predatory loans. Most states have regulated these loans, as they will with these vehicle devices. I't going to take a while, though.
There is nothing inherently predatory about payday loans. Many employers do paycheck advances which might have zero or nominal interest.
It's technically a payday loan. Also, just charging a reasonable interest rate for the risk isn't predatory. It's predatory practices like high interest
or setting terms so they get stuck in a cycle that make it predatory not the type of the loan. Loaning money to people who are high risk isn't
predatory, it's the taking advantage of them with rediculous terms because they have no other choice that is predatory.
I have "poor" friends who eke an additional 8-10 years out of a $3000 minivan they saved up and paid cash for and don't just rush out and buy a new car because this one's old and might break down some time.
Your definition of poor is a little different than my definition. What you're describing is what I typically call "working class" or "lower middle class"
Your so called "poor" friends are not the people these type of devices are usually targetted at. These type of devices are generally not targetted
at people buying new cars. These type of devices are targetting at people who can't even afford a $3000 car but rather are trying to finance
a $700 car with payments of $50 per week.
Absolutely right, and in that situation you shouldnt even glance at a loan.
If you're making minimum wage and lucky enough to have a fulltime job then you're gross is still under $400 a week.
A loan is about the only way you're going to be able to buy a car without either not eating or not paying your rent.
Now, you could argue that someone on minimum wage shouldn't own a car but in many situations that's not realistic
as it severely limits the type of jobs you can get. Also, most people who are using payday cash loan places are
probably in a situation where either they don't have a support network or their friends are just as bad off as they
are so even "bumming a ride" isn't a legitimate option.
There are entire organizations dedicated to "microloans" for people in 3rd world countries. Loans aren't inherently bad
even at high interest if they are short-term and used for the right reason.
After I stopped building computers for family members I started referring them all to dell.
The reason I did this is that dell seemed to have a minimum quality unlike other companies.
Until they started selling netbooks, the cheapest computers on dell were always midrange
computer at a decent price with decent reliability. Walmart on the other hand tended to sell
stuff that was 3 years old technology and practically obsolete before you unboxed it and
sometimes had horrible reliability issues and zero customer support.
For many, debt is a way of life. In that hypothetical situation you have no way out.
I disagree completely. The point of the hypothetical situation I described is that this so called "predatory lender", if used correctly, is a way out.
In my hypothetical situation, I just landed a job, all I need is a car. So finding a payday cash loan place or a car dealership to front me the $500
to buy a car is all I need to get to my first paycheck. Used correctly, payday cash loan places actually provide a valuable service by providing
a way for someone who has no other way of getting money to get a few hundred dollars to get back on their feet. The problem is that the
majority of the payday cash loan customers are not "once in a lifetime" or even "once every five year" type users but are people who are repeat
users.
Ok, make them optional. As a consumer needing a car to get to work, would you choose the car with the
"$200 payment and 30% interest" or "$100 payment, 10% interest, and remote shutoff"
Unless you were blatantly planning on not paying your bill, you are going to choose the later.
In theory, a device like this would allow a company to sell cars with lower interest and lower payments than their competitors
therefore benefiting the people who have ruined their credits.
The only thing I might add is that they should get a 24 hour warning of the shutoff and the shutoff should happen at a specific time like 2am
but I think a device like this isn't necessarily a bad idea for people with zero credit and needs a car for work.
How do you define predatory? Let's say I lose my job and burn thru my savings and then my car breaks down.
I'm late on my mortgage and have maxed out my credit card. Yes, I did it mostly to myself, but now let's say
I do manage to find a job and don't live in a big city and need to get to work. I'm too risky for someone to give
me a loan but with one of these devices someone who otherwise would not sell me a car might be willing to
take that risk. Is this a predator because they are selling me a car when noone else will?
Same with payday cash loan places. They are willing to loan money to people when banks won't. In exchange
they charge considerably higher interest rates but still probably better than getting a loan from a loan shark
that gets you to pay him back with a baseball bat. Desparate people do desparate things. You can't eliminate
predatory loans without eliminating desparate people. It's much better to regulate it than outlaw it and sometimes
even people who aren't living incorrectly come up short of money when they need it most.
That's the problem with liberals like Gates. They are very good at telling others how to be responsible citizens but consider themselves exempt from that
Unfortunately, I think it's at least partially to do with how corporations are run in the USA. Bill Gates might be generous and want to donate his
personal time/money. Even a corporation might be generous and can donate a percentage to charity but when it comes to actually "running"
the company then you are suppose to do what is in the best interest of the company and shareholders so corporations do everything unethical
under the sun as long as it's legal.
Maybe a solution would be to fine companies for violating the "spirit of the law" instead of just violating the "letter of the law" because
everyone knows that apple, google, starbucks, etc... aren't really running the bulk of their business in Ireland and the cayman islands.
On the other hand, as related to the employment issue, it makes sense that if you need more employees and can't hire them in the USA and
you're a multinational corporation that you would hire them at a branch office in a country that you can find them in. It's just stating a fact.
You laugh, but actually MSNBC is extremely conservative by international standards.
America is a crazy place, full of crazy people shooting each other with guns to avoid getting vaccinated.
And I've heard people complain that fox news is too liberal. No matter how extreme you think someone is there is probably someone more extreme.
Oh, and I forgot a big one. Big business. Slashdot tends to be rather negative towards big business as well
while traditional "conservatives" are usually pro business.
If the conservatives didn't have the overwhelming majority voice here then why do all the front page articles sway to their side when they are about political topics?
I know it's hard to believe but there are more than 2 sides to the political spectrum. There's not just conservatives and
liberals. You're probably right that the majority of slashdot is "anti nanny state" but that doesn't mean that the majority
are conservatives. The "anti nanny state" people are a mixture of anarchists, libertarians, conservatives, independents,
and probably a few other groups I'm forgetting.
If you want proof that slashdot is not majority conservative then look at how slashdot responds to issues like drug laws,
global warming, evolution, the big bang, gay marriage, or anything religious and see if you still have the same opinion.
Why is apple so obsessed with thin? If apple doubled the thickness it would still be a rather thin phone.
It could then double the battery life, make it waterproof, beef up the shock protection and have room for
a better camera. As has been noted, the current iphone is so thin that the camera sticks out. At least
make it that thick. Heck, it might even be able to add an option for a keyboard. I don't see anyone
saying that their iphone is too thick but I do know alot of people who would like a smartphone with
a longer battery life so why would apple make a phone even thinner instead of using that extra space
for a larger battery and other features that people actually want and are willing to pay for?
I agree completely. Either life expectancy stays about the same or we find a cure for aging and people start to live indefinitely.
If it's the latter then we have additional issues to deal with like being able to afford the cure, overpopulation, war, etc... which
might keep the average life expectancy down for reasons other than aging.