Yeah, I can see how immortality could lead to risk aversion, as well. . . it is probably the perceived lack of return that prevents some older people from learning new things. . .
Why are you assuming that you have any money to steal in this scenario? Do you honestly believe that there is a job that exists that cannot be automated within the next couple of centuries? When it is YOU receiving a basic income, will you have "earned it" at that point?
I am trying to determine whether you are an overzealous workaholic puritan or just out of touch with technological progress.
I certainly doubt that I or anyone else alive today can take credit for this "technological terror," as the vast majority of us are alive as a direct result of said technology. Though I suppose we could take credit for the incremental progress we have contributed . . . .
You are more than welcome to reduce the impact on the Earth by 1 human being and only 1. The rest of us will push on to drive humanity from being a mere occupant to becoming a caretaker of this precious planet. This will be accomplished by superior technology, not by superior rhetoric.
I have seen that movie multiple times, along with every other dystopian movie ever created worth watching. However, technological improvement appears to be exponential, so you really need to look at shorter periods of history to get an idea of where things are trending.
For instance, the last 5 ~ 10 years has resulted in some technological breakthroughs that should greatly change the traditional views of overpopulation. We are increasingly doing more with less, such that the concept of "over population" is becoming an increasingly meaningless term.
Concentration of power is detrimental to the health of society and the individuals in that society. We do need massive decentralization of power to ensure a healthy society (you will always have sociopaths but a robust society would ensure it was impossible for them to gain power over others). The Internet has decentralized global communications. We are experiencing the decentralization of access to energy. Those were the hardest parts to decentralize so the rest should easily follow. Besides, decentralized technologies accessible to the masses have a natural tendency to rapidly improve that other, more centralized technologies lack (i.e. cellphone vs the airplane). Accordingly, as society becomes more technologically advanced, individuals become less vulnerable to the oppression by a small minority.
Again, the hard part is the technological question of how we ensure our species has enough resources to live. That has already been solved and increasingly so as technology advances. Ensuring that people do not starve in our highly automated economy is a comparatively easier problem to solve (e.g. basic income). As power is decentralized, policies beneficial to the masses will become even easier to implement.
people who are mentally stuck in their ways will take even longer to die off.
Seems like you are assuming that "being stuck in your ways" has nothing to do with the aging of the brain when it probably has a lot to do with declining function as the brain gets older and diminishing returns of taking risks when one reaches the end of one's life.
Besides, "waiting for them to die off" does not seem like a very sophisticated approach to dealing with our social problems. . .
Our current state of technology can support our entire species with unprecedented efficiency and sustainability. This technology appears to be improving at a faster pace. The hard problem appears to have been solved already. Things like how we distribute wealth is a mere social construct that can literally occur overnight with a signing of a law (like basic income). Though idiots get disproportionate attention, most humans are reasonable and can make choices that benefit the entire species.
Why not? If 50 million tired and aching U.S. senior citizens were turned healthy and energetic, why could they not help bring entire nations up from poverty? Ending aging would dramatically increase the manpower and working knowledge that could in turn be used to address the problems of the world.
Besides, I am sure there was much more poverty when people were living to just be 40 years old. . . it seems that living longer gives you more time to claw your way out of poverty.
Evolution's only driver for maximum age is how long it takes you to have kids and get them old enough to live without needing you anymore. Accordingly, modern technology (like sanitation) has allowed us to roughly double that max age and there is no reason to assume that it will stop there.
Seems easy enough to set up an experiment to address this.
However, I do want to add that seeing significant anti-aging effects but no extension of life expectancy would seem to imply that aging is programmed. There is growing evidence that aging is not programmed, though. Instead, aging seems to be the result of wear and tear on a very complicated system, so that reducing wear and tear should extend the life of the system.
There has actually been a lot of thought put into that. Here is one example.
A short explanation is to point out the well documented fact that people have fewer kids and tend to have kids later in life the longer they live. Consequently, a cheap pill that allows people to live hundreds of years would cause an immediate effect of a DECREASE in the number of kids born, and would POSTPONE a lot of births that would have otherwise have had happened sooner. So the birthrate would decrease GREATLY over this initial period, while other causes of deaths would continue. As a result, over the "short term" (probably centuries, to immortals) you probably would see a population DECREASE, as a result.
Eventually, though, people will reach some equilibrium of having kids, so the initial period before this is crucial. Basically, we will have an army of well educated, experienced, and healthy people to tackle some key technologies (e.g. space elevators, etc. ..). After the initial period (again, probably centuries long), we send armies of people to settle the rest of solar system, or make a Dyson sphere, or whatever else help ensure the continuation of the species.
Just because we have learned to live with death does not mean death is some kind crucial component to ensure the continuation of our species. In fact, it is the exact opposite. . .
End of life care is expensive and ineffectual because it is targeting the symptoms of the problem, not the underlying problem, which is age. Eventually, the technology will be at the point that it will just make more economic sense to have people preemptively reduce aging instead of going to the doctor for an age related illness.
Yes, people will have to work longer but you will not work yourself to death to save up for retirement (just for the occasional break). There are plenty of problems in the world, so having more able people to address those problems is probably a good thing. Also, people will put off having kids longer and everyone is going to start to care a lot more about the "longterm" of things. Seems like a positive direction for humanity. . .
So I doubt that will go away. You need to lock someone up when the next Enron happens. . . However, perhaps that title gets pushed down to what we currently call dev team lead? Seems the days of antiquated managers pretending to look busy are certainly numbered . . .
Hey, with crouton, you can literally have the best of both worlds at the same time! (no wiping required!)
Also, it is probably too soon to assume there will be much, if any, negative impact on end users. Seems likely you will be able to continue your current habits with the added bonus of having all (not just a small subset of) android apps potentially available on your Chrome book.
They are significantly more expensive than gasoline cars at the low end
I assume you are not taking into account "cost of ownership" (gas, oil changes, wear, etc. ..), which is stepping over a dollar to save a nickel. LEDs are way more expensive than incandescents, but you are buying the MORE expensive lightbulb when you go incandescent for MOST use cases these days.
want to take a longer trip
This is like commuting in a pick-up truck. . . a complete waste 95% of the time. Most people would be better off renting for trips, just as most people will be better off renting all the time when vehicles are fully automated. Your argument is more one of social norms, not one of economics (choices that allow people to maximize their wealth over the long run).
you generally need to get a charger for your home
This is a patently FALSE statement. The majority of people I know with EVs use trickle charging off their regular outlet. Most people spend a significant enough time at home everyday (doing things like sleeping) that this is enough for their needs.
you don't see a whole bunch of electric cars in poor areas
Yes, and you could have said the same thing about PCs, before they became cheap cell phones. What you see now is not a good indication of what you will see in the future. In fact, when talking technology, what you see now is a HORRIBLE indicator of the future.
EV technology is superior to ICE technology. However, ICE technology has had over 100 years of infrastructural and cultural investment. The only road blocks are those of social inertia. In the end, superior technologies win over the inferior ones and those who can prioritize economics over social norms are better off financially over the long term.
And that's the real challenge with electric cars...not range, not cost
You should talk more to EV owners to better inform your opinion . . .
EV owner here, and I never charge at work. I charge at home, so I normally spend less time "refueling" in public than you do. Most EV owners are in a similar situation. Charging in public is for those extra trips outside of normal activity.
By the way, EV chargers are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper and simpler than installing a gas station. The biggest thing holding back EV charger installation is simply demand. The strange bickering TFA talks about is most likely due to treating chargers as a "commons" rather than a business. There are business oriented networks out there and people who hog chargers fund the next round of new chargers (that is how business works. . . ). If demand at a certain spot reaches too high a level for the existing power supply, the charger network can just upgrade the supply, install a battery, etc . . . and it still would all be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper and simpler than installing a gas station.
You see gas stations everywhere and think "boy, that must be simple and cheap" and see few EV stations and think "wow, that is must be complex and expensive." You probably think the same about ICE vs. EVs. You simply are forgetting the context of a century of investment in one technology vs very recent and modest investment in the other. Same goes for LED vs incandescent lightbulbs.
In short, new technologies can be better in almost every way yet still take a while to hit mainstream due to the inertia of older, more complicated, more costly technologies. Do not mistaken social inertia for technological superiority.
Two things:
- If you think you must be rich to own an EV like the Nissan Leaf, you must be either out of touch or live in a 3rd world country
- Back in the day when PCs were expensive, you might have scoffed at any issues they had as "just rich peoples problems" and you would have been wrong. By the way, it is hard to find EV charges now, but eventually it will be hard to find gasoline stands.. . .
In Austin, we have recently had a network of super charges installed through-out the city. I own a Nissan leaf, and 10 ~ 15 minutes is all the charging I ever need, so I just wait in my car while charging (with the AC running, which EVs allow guiltlessly and, since I work from home, working from car for a little bit is no issue).
However, some owners don't seem to understand how short the optimal charge time is or how slow they are charging after they hit 80% (if they want to hit 100% at that point, they should move to a 6kw charger), so they go have lunch or go shopping, blocking the only super charger for others. Some people may know and don't car.
Eventually, the chargers will start charging by the minute (they are free right now). People who hog the chargers will fund the next set of new chargers that will be installed and people who don't hog will pay the least to charge their EV. The "tragedy of the commons" is a well studied phenomenon and the solutions are well tested.
On the other hand, I can also see the day when plumbers, mechanics, and insurance agents are all replaced by robotics and software. . . what are those displaced people supposed to do at that point?
Sorry, I know this is Slashdot, but please. . . how do the tsunami deaths mitigate the meltdown's damage? Yes, the tsunami itself was one of the worst disasters in Japan's modern history. Ergo, it was the WORST time to have a meltdown. Simultaneous disasters have multiplier affects off of each other, which makes everything WORSE. The meltdown diverted resources that could have gone to helping more people impacted by the tsunami. Straightforward things like gathering the dead and cleaning up the wreckage afterwards were made way more difficult thanks to contamination. Disaster countermeasure planning was made way more complicated and ineffective thanks to the timing of the meltdown.
Your logic is like, "he was already on the ground when I kicked him in the stomach, therefore, it was not that bad, right?" The fact that meltdown's are likely to happen at the WORST time possible is not something you should be focusing on if the point you are trying to make is, "it was not THAT bad."
Label space does not seem like it should matter anymore. . .
If there is an app for me to compare brick & mortar items with online items in real time, it seems we are living in a time where it should be trivial and cheap to quickly access all the information you would ever want to know about an item before you purchase it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I can see how immortality could lead to risk aversion, as well. . . it is probably the perceived lack of return that prevents some older people from learning new things. . .
Seriously? Human society would not EXIST if it were not for living longer.
steal my money
Why are you assuming that you have any money to steal in this scenario? Do you honestly believe that there is a job that exists that cannot be automated within the next couple of centuries? When it is YOU receiving a basic income, will you have "earned it" at that point?
I am trying to determine whether you are an overzealous workaholic puritan or just out of touch with technological progress.
I certainly doubt that I or anyone else alive today can take credit for this "technological terror," as the vast majority of us are alive as a direct result of said technology. Though I suppose we could take credit for the incremental progress we have contributed . . . .
You are more than welcome to reduce the impact on the Earth by 1 human being and only 1. The rest of us will push on to drive humanity from being a mere occupant to becoming a caretaker of this precious planet. This will be accomplished by superior technology, not by superior rhetoric.
I have seen that movie multiple times, along with every other dystopian movie ever created worth watching. However, technological improvement appears to be exponential, so you really need to look at shorter periods of history to get an idea of where things are trending.
For instance, the last 5 ~ 10 years has resulted in some technological breakthroughs that should greatly change the traditional views of overpopulation. We are increasingly doing more with less, such that the concept of "over population" is becoming an increasingly meaningless term.
Concentration of power is detrimental to the health of society and the individuals in that society. We do need massive decentralization of power to ensure a healthy society (you will always have sociopaths but a robust society would ensure it was impossible for them to gain power over others). The Internet has decentralized global communications. We are experiencing the decentralization of access to energy. Those were the hardest parts to decentralize so the rest should easily follow. Besides, decentralized technologies accessible to the masses have a natural tendency to rapidly improve that other, more centralized technologies lack (i.e. cellphone vs the airplane). Accordingly, as society becomes more technologically advanced, individuals become less vulnerable to the oppression by a small minority.
Again, the hard part is the technological question of how we ensure our species has enough resources to live. That has already been solved and increasingly so as technology advances. Ensuring that people do not starve in our highly automated economy is a comparatively easier problem to solve (e.g. basic income). As power is decentralized, policies beneficial to the masses will become even easier to implement.
people who are mentally stuck in their ways will take even longer to die off.
Seems like you are assuming that "being stuck in your ways" has nothing to do with the aging of the brain when it probably has a lot to do with declining function as the brain gets older and diminishing returns of taking risks when one reaches the end of one's life.
Besides, "waiting for them to die off" does not seem like a very sophisticated approach to dealing with our social problems. . .
Our current state of technology can support our entire species with unprecedented efficiency and sustainability. This technology appears to be improving at a faster pace. The hard problem appears to have been solved already. Things like how we distribute wealth is a mere social construct that can literally occur overnight with a signing of a law (like basic income). Though idiots get disproportionate attention, most humans are reasonable and can make choices that benefit the entire species.
Why not? If 50 million tired and aching U.S. senior citizens were turned healthy and energetic, why could they not help bring entire nations up from poverty? Ending aging would dramatically increase the manpower and working knowledge that could in turn be used to address the problems of the world.
Besides, I am sure there was much more poverty when people were living to just be 40 years old. . . it seems that living longer gives you more time to claw your way out of poverty.
My offer of an explanation is that we only have recently started living past that age.
Evolution's only driver for maximum age is how long it takes you to have kids and get them old enough to live without needing you anymore. Accordingly, modern technology (like sanitation) has allowed us to roughly double that max age and there is no reason to assume that it will stop there.
Seems easy enough to set up an experiment to address this.
However, I do want to add that seeing significant anti-aging effects but no extension of life expectancy would seem to imply that aging is programmed. There is growing evidence that aging is not programmed, though. Instead, aging seems to be the result of wear and tear on a very complicated system, so that reducing wear and tear should extend the life of the system.
There has actually been a lot of thought put into that. Here is one example.
.). After the initial period (again, probably centuries long), we send armies of people to settle the rest of solar system, or make a Dyson sphere, or whatever else help ensure the continuation of the species.
A short explanation is to point out the well documented fact that people have fewer kids and tend to have kids later in life the longer they live. Consequently, a cheap pill that allows people to live hundreds of years would cause an immediate effect of a DECREASE in the number of kids born, and would POSTPONE a lot of births that would have otherwise have had happened sooner. So the birthrate would decrease GREATLY over this initial period, while other causes of deaths would continue. As a result, over the "short term" (probably centuries, to immortals) you probably would see a population DECREASE, as a result.
Eventually, though, people will reach some equilibrium of having kids, so the initial period before this is crucial. Basically, we will have an army of well educated, experienced, and healthy people to tackle some key technologies (e.g. space elevators, etc. .
Just because we have learned to live with death does not mean death is some kind crucial component to ensure the continuation of our species. In fact, it is the exact opposite. . .
End of life care is expensive and ineffectual because it is targeting the symptoms of the problem, not the underlying problem, which is age. Eventually, the technology will be at the point that it will just make more economic sense to have people preemptively reduce aging instead of going to the doctor for an age related illness.
Yes, people will have to work longer but you will not work yourself to death to save up for retirement (just for the occasional break). There are plenty of problems in the world, so having more able people to address those problems is probably a good thing. Also, people will put off having kids longer and everyone is going to start to care a lot more about the "longterm" of things. Seems like a positive direction for humanity. . .
So I doubt that will go away. You need to lock someone up when the next Enron happens. . . However, perhaps that title gets pushed down to what we currently call dev team lead? Seems the days of antiquated managers pretending to look busy are certainly numbered . . .
Hey, with crouton, you can literally have the best of both worlds at the same time! (no wiping required!)
Also, it is probably too soon to assume there will be much, if any, negative impact on end users. Seems likely you will be able to continue your current habits with the added bonus of having all (not just a small subset of) android apps potentially available on your Chrome book.
They are significantly more expensive than gasoline cars at the low end
I assume you are not taking into account "cost of ownership" (gas, oil changes, wear, etc. . .), which is stepping over a dollar to save a nickel. LEDs are way more expensive than incandescents, but you are buying the MORE expensive lightbulb when you go incandescent for MOST use cases these days.
want to take a longer trip
This is like commuting in a pick-up truck. . . a complete waste 95% of the time. Most people would be better off renting for trips, just as most people will be better off renting all the time when vehicles are fully automated. Your argument is more one of social norms, not one of economics (choices that allow people to maximize their wealth over the long run).
you generally need to get a charger for your home
This is a patently FALSE statement. The majority of people I know with EVs use trickle charging off their regular outlet. Most people spend a significant enough time at home everyday (doing things like sleeping) that this is enough for their needs.
you don't see a whole bunch of electric cars in poor areas
Yes, and you could have said the same thing about PCs, before they became cheap cell phones. What you see now is not a good indication of what you will see in the future. In fact, when talking technology, what you see now is a HORRIBLE indicator of the future.
EV technology is superior to ICE technology. However, ICE technology has had over 100 years of infrastructural and cultural investment. The only road blocks are those of social inertia. In the end, superior technologies win over the inferior ones and those who can prioritize economics over social norms are better off financially over the long term.
And that's the real challenge with electric cars...not range, not cost
You should talk more to EV owners to better inform your opinion . . .
EV owner here, and I never charge at work. I charge at home, so I normally spend less time "refueling" in public than you do. Most EV owners are in a similar situation. Charging in public is for those extra trips outside of normal activity.
By the way, EV chargers are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper and simpler than installing a gas station. The biggest thing holding back EV charger installation is simply demand. The strange bickering TFA talks about is most likely due to treating chargers as a "commons" rather than a business. There are business oriented networks out there and people who hog chargers fund the next round of new chargers (that is how business works. . . ). If demand at a certain spot reaches too high a level for the existing power supply, the charger network can just upgrade the supply, install a battery, etc . . . and it still would all be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper and simpler than installing a gas station.
You see gas stations everywhere and think "boy, that must be simple and cheap" and see few EV stations and think "wow, that is must be complex and expensive." You probably think the same about ICE vs. EVs. You simply are forgetting the context of a century of investment in one technology vs very recent and modest investment in the other. Same goes for LED vs incandescent lightbulbs.
In short, new technologies can be better in almost every way yet still take a while to hit mainstream due to the inertia of older, more complicated, more costly technologies. Do not mistaken social inertia for technological superiority.
Two things:
- If you think you must be rich to own an EV like the Nissan Leaf, you must be either out of touch or live in a 3rd world country
- Back in the day when PCs were expensive, you might have scoffed at any issues they had as "just rich peoples problems" and you would have been wrong. By the way, it is hard to find EV charges now, but eventually it will be hard to find gasoline stands.. . .
In Austin, we have recently had a network of super charges installed through-out the city. I own a Nissan leaf, and 10 ~ 15 minutes is all the charging I ever need, so I just wait in my car while charging (with the AC running, which EVs allow guiltlessly and, since I work from home, working from car for a little bit is no issue).
However, some owners don't seem to understand how short the optimal charge time is or how slow they are charging after they hit 80% (if they want to hit 100% at that point, they should move to a 6kw charger), so they go have lunch or go shopping, blocking the only super charger for others. Some people may know and don't car.
Eventually, the chargers will start charging by the minute (they are free right now). People who hog the chargers will fund the next set of new chargers that will be installed and people who don't hog will pay the least to charge their EV. The "tragedy of the commons" is a well studied phenomenon and the solutions are well tested.
I see your point. . .
On the other hand, I can also see the day when plumbers, mechanics, and insurance agents are all replaced by robotics and software. . . what are those displaced people supposed to do at that point?
Sorry, I know this is Slashdot, but please. . . how do the tsunami deaths mitigate the meltdown's damage? Yes, the tsunami itself was one of the worst disasters in Japan's modern history. Ergo, it was the WORST time to have a meltdown. Simultaneous disasters have multiplier affects off of each other, which makes everything WORSE. The meltdown diverted resources that could have gone to helping more people impacted by the tsunami. Straightforward things like gathering the dead and cleaning up the wreckage afterwards were made way more difficult thanks to contamination. Disaster countermeasure planning was made way more complicated and ineffective thanks to the timing of the meltdown.
Your logic is like, "he was already on the ground when I kicked him in the stomach, therefore, it was not that bad, right?" The fact that meltdown's are likely to happen at the WORST time possible is not something you should be focusing on if the point you are trying to make is, "it was not THAT bad."
Yes, and to think, the only cost was the real but abstract to the human mind risk of killing off all life on the planet (and it almost happened on more than one occasion. . .).
This seems self correcting. I don't see how a grocery store that blocks cellphone service can last that long. . .
In the form of a coat hanger looking robot. . .
Label space does not seem like it should matter anymore. . .
If there is an app for me to compare brick & mortar items with online items in real time, it seems we are living in a time where it should be trivial and cheap to quickly access all the information you would ever want to know about an item before you purchase it.