Considering the fact that we wouldn't be able to do much of what we are doing now without any tools says something about how important they are.
Sheesh. Just goes to show that people can take offense at anything.
The OP's point wasn't that tools are unimportant, his point was that emotional attachments to what label is on the tool is stupid. "Anyone who doesn't use the XYZ hammer with it's beeeaaauutiful claw design is a complete fool! Can't they see that it's superior, especially when I paid twice the price than your inferior ABC hammer? Never mind they use exactly the same steel with exactly the same materials in the handle, and even get those from the same Chinese manufacturer. MINE IS SUPERIOR BOW DOWN TO MY HAMMER OR I WILL KILL YOU."
That's like saying modern digital pinball machines are better than the old electro-mechanical ones. Sure, they are technologically better in nearly every way, but there's something about mechanical devices that are intrinsically more fascinating than electronic ones. (and if I have to explain why, you'll never understand.:) )
This is a general long term goal. It serves as a compass to validate innovation put in Volvo cars.
But it's not phrased as a "general" long term goal, it's given as a very, very specific goal: no deaths in volvo cars in the year 2020. Contrast that with the Lexus slogan, "The relentless pursuit of perfection." No one expects perfection, but I can get behind the *pursuit* of perfection.
Hmm, I vaguely remembered a Larry Niven story where someone in the hull survived some rapid deceleration event (like hitting a planet) and surviving, but maybe that was the special Puppeteer version with the stasis field.
While everyone would laud the goal "that no one should be killed or injured in a Volvo car," it's a completely ridiculous objective. If a huge truck hits you from behind, you'll die. If you run out of gas on rail road tracks in front of a train, you will die. If you're going too fast in mountain passes and dive off a cliff, you will die.
Unless Volvo has invented anti-gravity or a General Products Hull, this is a ridiculous piece of marketing that only the most stupidly ignorant could believe. Maybe the goal here is to give attention to Volvo, but the goal is so absurd that it seems like it has to bite them in the butt in some unforeseen way.
Am I the only one who sees the christmas bonus as a bizarre ritual? Since I'm self employed, I haven't had one in about a decade (I think I got a gift certificate for a turkey or something insane), but I've never felt like I was owed a christmas bonus. Sure, I cashed in whatever it was, but I never felt appreciative, nor did I ever feel like I was owed anything.
Back when I worked for a company, my attitude was that I do a service in exchange for money. It's not an emotional relationship, it's business, pure and simple.
It would be a good world if everyone stopped looking at their employer as their parents, looking for free handouts.
Which one is more appealing to a software company? An open platform that exposes itself to the world, or one that is closed?
A high barrier to entry is always more attractive to smart developers who are willing to pay whatever price and jump through whatever hoops to get over the barrier, and keep the riffraff out.
The point is that the axioms and definitions we make "by default" because of socialization are not the only ones.
Your "point" has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. You're jumping all over the fact that the plus symbol might have different mathematical functions depending on context. Who cares? The point of my original post is not to debate what the common definition of the symbol with two perpendicular lines means. The point of my original post is that the nature of mathematical functions do not change depending on the nature of the physical container they're thought about in.
1 + 1 = 0 under the circumstances of modulo 2 arithmetic.
That's like saying "1 + 1 = 1" under the circumstances of multiplication.
Just because the "modulo 2 arithmetic addition operator" happens to use the plus symbol doesn't mean it's equivalent to the addition operator on the set of real numbers, which is what is (by default) meant by the "+" function.
When those unwritten rules get violated, hockey players don't whine, they show their displeasure in a more cathartic way.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the players "need a place to let off steam, because they're carrying sticks. Better to let them fight than to start swinging sticks." I've heard all the rationalizations, and they're all crap. Hockey allows fighting because they think their core fan base wants fighting (and they're probably right about that), but that aspect of the game will forever keep it out of the mainstream.
If I want fighting, I'll watching boxing (and I hate boxing). I want athletic competition. Gretzky proved that Hockey can be played as a legitimate sport and people will watch.
You apparently are one of those people that like the fighting. Fine. But that's why I won't let my kids watch Hockey. Sportsmanship is taught in this family, not thuggery.
Athletic professionals will adjust to whatever rules the league institutes. If they want to get rid of fighting and they put teeth in penalties, fighting will be gone.
God is the greater fundamental truth and then God actually created mathematics to be the lesser logical truth. 1+1=2 because God created it so. Even the very concept that 1+1 could equal 2 had no existence prior to that creation. Not even numbers existed until they were created.
That's a lovely religious sentiment, but unfortunately false. Mathematics is not something that's "created", it's discovered through logical thought. Mathematics would still be true even if there was no physical reality and there were no beings thinking about it. All of it can be derived simply by thinking, without any external knowledge of the universe.
But you are not going far enough, because, simply put, it cannot for that matter be demonstrated that the universe even exists.
Well, this is provably not true. I provably exist (on a subjective basis), and whatever container I'm in is "The Universe", by definition. What we can't prove is whether everything else in the universe exists.
Though, there are some interesting philosophical arguments along these lines, about what we can deduce about the universe purely from our thoughts (e.g., the fact that I have a language implies that there must be at least one other being in the universe).
If you'd like to compete with Dirac (for example) and argue that he was dumb for taking so long to recognize antiparticles' existence, or that Green should have "obviously" recognized that there must be such things as evanescent waves because the Helmholtz equation has some complex roots for the wavenumbers, then be my guest.
I'm not claiming that anything is obvious, or that the any particular equation automatically describes physical reality. I'm arguing more from the other side -- that it's silly to be shocked when physical reality fits mathematics. It might be a "source of delight" at what branch of math ends up describing the physical reality, but the very fact that everything interlocks within mathematics should not be. It cannot be any other way.
That's a very startling proposition because it goes well beyond simply counting what is, it means the same rules which define the math in the first place underly the physical mechanisms.
But it really isn't startling at all. It's the only way it can be. Physics cannot violate mathematics -- because that's like saying physics might contradict 1 + 1 = 2. Or that physics might somehow cause having 10 bananas, adding 2 bananas, and winding up with 13 bananas.
Mathematics underlies physics because it can't be any other way. Another way of saying this is that logic and non-contradiction underlies everything. The "rules which define math" are not rules in the science sense, they are rules in the logical sense. All you're saying is that physics can't have illogical contradictions, and that says nothing more than 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.
Philosophers have long wondered at the profound link between mathematics and physics, but how deep does this connection go?
What an utterly meaningless bit of drivel. Any philosopher wondering this ought to turn in his license.
"Physics" is (to simplify) the scientific study of what rules the universe operates under. It's entirely possible and reasonable we can determine universal laws without having the faintest idea of *why* they are that way. It's observed truth that might even be totally different in a different part of the universe (we assume it's not, but that's just an assumption).
Mathematics is an abstract game of counting, built up into great complexity. 1 + 1 = 2 will be true in any universe, under any god(s), in any circumstances. And all of mathematics is built up from that. It's universal truth.
We use mathematics to quantify physics, but there is no "connection" between the two, except in the sense that we can count *anything* and say there's a connection. It's like saying, "How deep does the connection go between mathematics and bananas when I observe there are 10 bananas, and I add two more, and then I observe 12 bananas."
I pity people who think that the government is responsible for managing the overall economy. That's called socialism. It's supposed to be a -free- market.
No. Socialism is the government *running* certain industries (and no, "high taxes" are not socialism, despite what the moron wing of my Republican party believes).
The government is responsible for managing the *overall* economy through laws and regulation and monetary policy. It is not responsible for picking winners and losers -- *that's* socialism.
And a totally free market without any government intervention would be completely stupid. Even rabid Libertarians (at least the ones who have a clue what an economy actually is) don't want that. That means no government-enforced contracts. That means no control of monopolies. That means no control of corporate corruption and collusion. A completely free market basically becomes an end-game of Monopoly -- control all the money and resources, "Standard Oil"-style. A functioning free market depends on their being a market, where new players can enter and old players can leave on a regular basis.
as my relatives that don't have high paying jobs are having to pawn stuff and as my friend's fathers become unemployed.
*sigh* The government is responsible for managing the overall economy, not for ensuring that particular people have jobs. Your relatives are solely responsible for their own lives. Blaming the success or failure of an *individual* on government economic policy is just stupid.
I actually pity people who think their individual success is dependent on who is running the country.
That means the more he pays someone else, the less he can pay you.
That's just economically wrong. I'm paid based on supply and demand (macroeconomically speaking, of course on an individual basis, it's not based on perfect knowledge). I'm not paid based on "what the boss has left". And as a self-employed individual, I have no intrinsic limit on how much I can earn.
You can't just keep making up "wealth" out of thin air. Eventually, someone has to pay the piper.
Wealth is a completely artificial concept. It literally is made up out "thin air". If I take a $10 piece of canvas and $50 worth of paints, and produce a painting deemed worth $500K, then I have created wealth.
Now, there are hard assets such as real estate which are supply limited (I can't create more of it, for the most part), but the value of it is still an artificial concept.
If "good investing" were as remotely easy as your conceit keeps telling you it is, then the people losing money would be in minority.
Almost no one, over the long term, loses money when you invest in a conservative, diversified portfolio. You can't just look at single periods of time in history. Of course it's possible in any five year span to lose money. But over a 30 year span, it's nearly impossible to lose money, if you're diversified. You seem to think that the current economic issues have never happened before, or that it somehow "proves" that investing is a complete waste of time. That's just short-term ignorant thinking.
To put it simply, the birth rate will stay at replacement levels, but the mortality rate will decrease dramatically. Perhaps you can walk me through how that does not equal a (significant) population increase.
Well, I must admit my thinking was wrong on this. I was overcomplicating the math in my head... I was thinking that as the average age of the population increases, naturally the birth rate will decrease, due to the aging population being unable/uninterested in creating more kids. Which is true, but there are two independent games going -- the population under ~40 produces kids independently of the second game of people over ~40. So the first game isn't affected by lack of aging, but the second game is.
So yes, you're correct on this and I was wrong.
Still, it's not inevitable that we'll get an ever increasing population, depending on the effect of eventual global urbanization and what the death rate is of an older population that isn't afflicted by age-related illness.
Secondly, to highlight just how big the disparity in wealth between "one of those rich people" and the average person actually is, since you obviously have no grasp of it. Hell, you've probably drunk enough of the kool-aid to think that those guys are actually worth their ludicrous salaries.
I literally could not care less how much someone else makes. Really. I tip my hat to anyone who figures out how to live as well as they can. You know why? Because what someone else makes has no bearing on how much I make. The pie is not limited. Of course, given your post, the kool-aid you've drunk makes you think you're poor because someone else is rich. But you're wrong.
Honestly, I pity people like you. You walk through life thinking that all the "amoral, super-rich sociopaths" are the ones keeping you down. Look in the mirror if you want to see who is keeping you down.
Which might keep up with actual inflation, if you're lucky.
No luck involved. Open a book on investment sometime. Not "get rich quick" investing, I mean long-term investing. This stuff is not rocket science. But here's another hint for you: Diversification.
And your justification for believing that all those other forms of mortality are going to skyrocket (in direct contradiction of historical reality), would be...?
They don't need to skyrocket. Normal dying + aging population less interested in reproduction + the current trend of stable population by 2050 + worldwide urbanization = falling population.
Really, you very much need to open up your box and think outside it on occasion. Let me guess: you're a big Chomsky fan, right? If not, you should read him. He's right up your fatalist "woe is me" alley.
What prevents the damage from having an overall negative effect is evolution.
"Evolution" is not some magic wand that repairs damage from generation to generation. The vast majority of people are born renewed with no signs of cellular damage. Evolution prunes dead ends over a large amount of time, it doesn't regenerate existing cells and it doesn't operate that quickly.
You don't need any one generation to keep having kids to have a population problem. Just failing to die off will cause numbers to rocket.
First of all, as I pointed out to the other person, lack of aging does not you never die!
Second, you fail to take into account that population growth is naturally decreasing and is expected to level out around 2050 give or take. Urbanization of culture leads to fewer children being born, so if you want to have "numbers of the future" to compare to, compare to numbers in modern countries. In many countries, they actually have a negative population rate. An aging population will only accelerate that trend.
By the time you retire, you might just have as much as an average CEO makes in one year today.
And it matters what someone else makes because...?
Only inflation will mean it's probably only worth a tenth of what it would be today.
Well, yeah, if you're a fool and put your money in a mattress. Most people who understand saving are not fools, and they put their money in reasonable, diversified investments.
It's hard to take anyone seriously who lacks the basic logic and mathematics to grasp the point that if people stop dying, the population will increase.
It's hard to take anyone seriously who thinks that in a discussion of medical immortality (i.e., the lack of aging), there is also an implication of super-hero indestructibility.
Hint: just because you stop aging, doesn't mean you stop dying.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering the fact that we wouldn't be able to do much of what we are doing now without any tools says something about how important they are.
Sheesh. Just goes to show that people can take offense at anything.
The OP's point wasn't that tools are unimportant, his point was that emotional attachments to what label is on the tool is stupid. "Anyone who doesn't use the XYZ hammer with it's beeeaaauutiful claw design is a complete fool! Can't they see that it's superior, especially when I paid twice the price than your inferior ABC hammer? Never mind they use exactly the same steel with exactly the same materials in the handle, and even get those from the same Chinese manufacturer. MINE IS SUPERIOR BOW DOWN TO MY HAMMER OR I WILL KILL YOU."
That's like saying modern digital pinball machines are better than the old electro-mechanical ones. Sure, they are technologically better in nearly every way, but there's something about mechanical devices that are intrinsically more fascinating than electronic ones. (and if I have to explain why, you'll never understand. :) )
This is a general long term goal. It serves as a compass to validate innovation put in Volvo cars.
But it's not phrased as a "general" long term goal, it's given as a very, very specific goal: no deaths in volvo cars in the year 2020. Contrast that with the Lexus slogan, "The relentless pursuit of perfection." No one expects perfection, but I can get behind the *pursuit* of perfection.
Hmm, I vaguely remembered a Larry Niven story where someone in the hull survived some rapid deceleration event (like hitting a planet) and surviving, but maybe that was the special Puppeteer version with the stasis field.
While everyone would laud the goal "that no one should be killed or injured in a Volvo car," it's a completely ridiculous objective. If a huge truck hits you from behind, you'll die. If you run out of gas on rail road tracks in front of a train, you will die. If you're going too fast in mountain passes and dive off a cliff, you will die.
Unless Volvo has invented anti-gravity or a General Products Hull, this is a ridiculous piece of marketing that only the most stupidly ignorant could believe. Maybe the goal here is to give attention to Volvo, but the goal is so absurd that it seems like it has to bite them in the butt in some unforeseen way.
History books will refer to late 2008 as The Year God Decided He Really Hated America.
Nah, the fundamentalists will just blame Gay Marriage.
Mythical Man Month. A classic. There are no silver bullets! As true now as then.
Am I the only one who sees the christmas bonus as a bizarre ritual? Since I'm self employed, I haven't had one in about a decade (I think I got a gift certificate for a turkey or something insane), but I've never felt like I was owed a christmas bonus. Sure, I cashed in whatever it was, but I never felt appreciative, nor did I ever feel like I was owed anything.
Back when I worked for a company, my attitude was that I do a service in exchange for money. It's not an emotional relationship, it's business, pure and simple.
It would be a good world if everyone stopped looking at their employer as their parents, looking for free handouts.
Which one is more appealing to a software company? An open platform that exposes itself to the world, or one that is closed?
A high barrier to entry is always more attractive to smart developers who are willing to pay whatever price and jump through whatever hoops to get over the barrier, and keep the riffraff out.
You're thinking of Britney Spears. Pamela Anderson has always been skanky. Britney was actually pretty cute before the devil took his payment.
The point is that the axioms and definitions we make "by default" because of socialization are not the only ones.
Your "point" has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. You're jumping all over the fact that the plus symbol might have different mathematical functions depending on context. Who cares? The point of my original post is not to debate what the common definition of the symbol with two perpendicular lines means. The point of my original post is that the nature of mathematical functions do not change depending on the nature of the physical container they're thought about in.
1 + 1 = 0 under the circumstances of modulo 2 arithmetic.
That's like saying "1 + 1 = 1" under the circumstances of multiplication.
Just because the "modulo 2 arithmetic addition operator" happens to use the plus symbol doesn't mean it's equivalent to the addition operator on the set of real numbers, which is what is (by default) meant by the "+" function.
When those unwritten rules get violated, hockey players don't whine, they show their displeasure in a more cathartic way.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the players "need a place to let off steam, because they're carrying sticks. Better to let them fight than to start swinging sticks." I've heard all the rationalizations, and they're all crap. Hockey allows fighting because they think their core fan base wants fighting (and they're probably right about that), but that aspect of the game will forever keep it out of the mainstream.
If I want fighting, I'll watching boxing (and I hate boxing). I want athletic competition. Gretzky proved that Hockey can be played as a legitimate sport and people will watch.
You apparently are one of those people that like the fighting. Fine. But that's why I won't let my kids watch Hockey. Sportsmanship is taught in this family, not thuggery.
Athletic professionals will adjust to whatever rules the league institutes. If they want to get rid of fighting and they put teeth in penalties, fighting will be gone.
God is the greater fundamental truth and then God actually created mathematics to be the lesser logical truth. 1+1=2 because God created it so. Even the very concept that 1+1 could equal 2 had no existence prior to that creation. Not even numbers existed until they were created.
That's a lovely religious sentiment, but unfortunately false. Mathematics is not something that's "created", it's discovered through logical thought. Mathematics would still be true even if there was no physical reality and there were no beings thinking about it. All of it can be derived simply by thinking, without any external knowledge of the universe.
But you are not going far enough, because, simply put, it cannot for that matter be demonstrated that the universe even exists.
Well, this is provably not true. I provably exist (on a subjective basis), and whatever container I'm in is "The Universe", by definition. What we can't prove is whether everything else in the universe exists.
Though, there are some interesting philosophical arguments along these lines, about what we can deduce about the universe purely from our thoughts (e.g., the fact that I have a language implies that there must be at least one other being in the universe).
If you'd like to compete with Dirac (for example) and argue that he was dumb for taking so long to recognize antiparticles' existence, or that Green should have "obviously" recognized that there must be such things as evanescent waves because the Helmholtz equation has some complex roots for the wavenumbers, then be my guest.
I'm not claiming that anything is obvious, or that the any particular equation automatically describes physical reality. I'm arguing more from the other side -- that it's silly to be shocked when physical reality fits mathematics. It might be a "source of delight" at what branch of math ends up describing the physical reality, but the very fact that everything interlocks within mathematics should not be. It cannot be any other way.
That's a very startling proposition because it goes well beyond simply counting what is, it means the same rules which define the math in the first place underly the physical mechanisms.
But it really isn't startling at all. It's the only way it can be. Physics cannot violate mathematics -- because that's like saying physics might contradict 1 + 1 = 2. Or that physics might somehow cause having 10 bananas, adding 2 bananas, and winding up with 13 bananas.
Mathematics underlies physics because it can't be any other way. Another way of saying this is that logic and non-contradiction underlies everything. The "rules which define math" are not rules in the science sense, they are rules in the logical sense. All you're saying is that physics can't have illogical contradictions, and that says nothing more than 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.
Philosophers have long wondered at the profound link between mathematics and physics, but how deep does this connection go?
What an utterly meaningless bit of drivel. Any philosopher wondering this ought to turn in his license.
"Physics" is (to simplify) the scientific study of what rules the universe operates under. It's entirely possible and reasonable we can determine universal laws without having the faintest idea of *why* they are that way. It's observed truth that might even be totally different in a different part of the universe (we assume it's not, but that's just an assumption).
Mathematics is an abstract game of counting, built up into great complexity. 1 + 1 = 2 will be true in any universe, under any god(s), in any circumstances. And all of mathematics is built up from that. It's universal truth.
We use mathematics to quantify physics, but there is no "connection" between the two, except in the sense that we can count *anything* and say there's a connection. It's like saying, "How deep does the connection go between mathematics and bananas when I observe there are 10 bananas, and I add two more, and then I observe 12 bananas."
I pity people who think that the government is responsible for managing the overall economy. That's called socialism. It's supposed to be a -free- market.
No. Socialism is the government *running* certain industries (and no, "high taxes" are not socialism, despite what the moron wing of my Republican party believes).
The government is responsible for managing the *overall* economy through laws and regulation and monetary policy. It is not responsible for picking winners and losers -- *that's* socialism.
And a totally free market without any government intervention would be completely stupid. Even rabid Libertarians (at least the ones who have a clue what an economy actually is) don't want that. That means no government-enforced contracts. That means no control of monopolies. That means no control of corporate corruption and collusion. A completely free market basically becomes an end-game of Monopoly -- control all the money and resources, "Standard Oil"-style. A functioning free market depends on their being a market, where new players can enter and old players can leave on a regular basis.
as my relatives that don't have high paying jobs are having to pawn stuff and as my friend's fathers become unemployed.
*sigh* The government is responsible for managing the overall economy, not for ensuring that particular people have jobs. Your relatives are solely responsible for their own lives. Blaming the success or failure of an *individual* on government economic policy is just stupid.
I actually pity people who think their individual success is dependent on who is running the country.
That means the more he pays someone else, the less he can pay you.
That's just economically wrong. I'm paid based on supply and demand (macroeconomically speaking, of course on an individual basis, it's not based on perfect knowledge). I'm not paid based on "what the boss has left". And as a self-employed individual, I have no intrinsic limit on how much I can earn.
You can't just keep making up "wealth" out of thin air. Eventually, someone has to pay the piper.
Wealth is a completely artificial concept. It literally is made up out "thin air". If I take a $10 piece of canvas and $50 worth of paints, and produce a painting deemed worth $500K, then I have created wealth.
Now, there are hard assets such as real estate which are supply limited (I can't create more of it, for the most part), but the value of it is still an artificial concept.
If "good investing" were as remotely easy as your conceit keeps telling you it is, then the people losing money would be in minority.
Almost no one, over the long term, loses money when you invest in a conservative, diversified portfolio. You can't just look at single periods of time in history. Of course it's possible in any five year span to lose money. But over a 30 year span, it's nearly impossible to lose money, if you're diversified. You seem to think that the current economic issues have never happened before, or that it somehow "proves" that investing is a complete waste of time. That's just short-term ignorant thinking.
To put it simply, the birth rate will stay at replacement levels, but the mortality rate will decrease dramatically. Perhaps you can walk me through how that does not equal a (significant) population increase.
Well, I must admit my thinking was wrong on this. I was overcomplicating the math in my head... I was thinking that as the average age of the population increases, naturally the birth rate will decrease, due to the aging population being unable/uninterested in creating more kids. Which is true, but there are two independent games going -- the population under ~40 produces kids independently of the second game of people over ~40. So the first game isn't affected by lack of aging, but the second game is.
So yes, you're correct on this and I was wrong.
Still, it's not inevitable that we'll get an ever increasing population, depending on the effect of eventual global urbanization and what the death rate is of an older population that isn't afflicted by age-related illness.
Secondly, to highlight just how big the disparity in wealth between "one of those rich people" and the average person actually is, since you obviously have no grasp of it. Hell, you've probably drunk enough of the kool-aid to think that those guys are actually worth their ludicrous salaries.
I literally could not care less how much someone else makes. Really. I tip my hat to anyone who figures out how to live as well as they can. You know why? Because what someone else makes has no bearing on how much I make. The pie is not limited. Of course, given your post, the kool-aid you've drunk makes you think you're poor because someone else is rich. But you're wrong.
Honestly, I pity people like you. You walk through life thinking that all the "amoral, super-rich sociopaths" are the ones keeping you down. Look in the mirror if you want to see who is keeping you down.
Which might keep up with actual inflation, if you're lucky.
No luck involved. Open a book on investment sometime. Not "get rich quick" investing, I mean long-term investing. This stuff is not rocket science. But here's another hint for you: Diversification.
And your justification for believing that all those other forms of mortality are going to skyrocket (in direct contradiction of historical reality), would be...?
They don't need to skyrocket. Normal dying + aging population less interested in reproduction + the current trend of stable population by 2050 + worldwide urbanization = falling population.
Really, you very much need to open up your box and think outside it on occasion. Let me guess: you're a big Chomsky fan, right? If not, you should read him. He's right up your fatalist "woe is me" alley.
What prevents the damage from having an overall negative effect is evolution.
"Evolution" is not some magic wand that repairs damage from generation to generation. The vast majority of people are born renewed with no signs of cellular damage. Evolution prunes dead ends over a large amount of time, it doesn't regenerate existing cells and it doesn't operate that quickly.
You don't need any one generation to keep having kids to have a population problem. Just failing to die off will cause numbers to rocket.
First of all, as I pointed out to the other person, lack of aging does not you never die!
Second, you fail to take into account that population growth is naturally decreasing and is expected to level out around 2050 give or take. Urbanization of culture leads to fewer children being born, so if you want to have "numbers of the future" to compare to, compare to numbers in modern countries. In many countries, they actually have a negative population rate. An aging population will only accelerate that trend.
By the time you retire, you might just have as much as an average CEO makes in one year today.
And it matters what someone else makes because...?
Only inflation will mean it's probably only worth a tenth of what it would be today.
Well, yeah, if you're a fool and put your money in a mattress. Most people who understand saving are not fools, and they put their money in reasonable, diversified investments.
It's hard to take anyone seriously who lacks the basic logic and mathematics to grasp the point that if people stop dying, the population will increase.
It's hard to take anyone seriously who thinks that in a discussion of medical immortality (i.e., the lack of aging), there is also an implication of super-hero indestructibility.
Hint: just because you stop aging, doesn't mean you stop dying.