The World Future Society apparently attracts a lot of quacks:
I guess the question becomes whether you are going to trust all the scientists and doctors or the business professor (and author of 2!!! books on the future).
Since no one is interested, I will reply to myself. I think the business prof might be using the rise in life expectencies to extrapolate into the future. If so, he is a moron. Medicine has lowered the mortality rate a good bit, which raises life expectency. However, it hasn’t significantly raised maximum lifespans. It just makes it more likely you will reach old age.
It reminds me of something. I don’t know if any of you have taught history, but if you have, you might have noticed an interesting trend lately. Many students believe that people in ancient times literally led shorter lives than people do now. Since the life expectancy back then was probably 30-40, depending on where you lived (and when), many students actually think that people were old if they lived to be 40 or so. So when you tell them that Socrates was 70 when he died, they are amazed. They think he must have been a freak of nature, since people died much younger back then. I guess it doesn’t occur to them that disease and infant mortality skews the expectancy.
Forever is a very long time. But I’d be interested in living for quite a while.
Hmmm… I don’t know. I wouldn’t want to increase the chances of outliving my chillins. That is a thought that keeps me awake at night.
I thought this was a Highlander thread. I’m very disappointed.
but as to the whole futurism thing, there’s no real way to know, I think. Most of the predictions I’ve seen are along the lines of “20 years from now technological growth hits the singularity” which sounds good, and the arguments presented seem believable, but there’s no real way to KNOW until we actually get somewhat closer to it.
I’m not planning on avoiding death. Would like to, but not planning on it.
I would’nt mind living longer, but not forever.
You know, if you’re going to live forever or at least a lot longer, you’re going to have to worry about being set for life financially. That’d be a bigger headache than it already is for most people…
The Bible itself talks about lifespans of 3 score and 10 years. Native Americans lived to ripe old ages as well. It would seem “civilization” and specifically, cities, initially lowered life expectancies with pollution and the rapid spread of disease.
As an aside, the fastidiously clean native Americans were not so much wiped out by the Spaniards as by the diseases they brought, leaving North America ripe for plunder^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcolonization.
There’s always been well-to-do village elders who lived to 70, or whatever; the problem was that everyone else had a nasty tendency to die by 40.
A somewhat less speculative bit of futurism is looking at income. The US has a GDP per-capita of $36,000, and personal income is increasing by 3% a year or so. Projecting:
2010: $44300
2020: $59500
2030: $80000
2040: $107500
2050: $144400
2060: $194100
2070: $260850
2080: $350600
2090: $471100
2100: $633200
The out years are enormous, obviously, but geez, I’ll only be 44 in 2020. Those are real, not inflated, dollars; everyone’s going to be rich.
Yes, and if only they insisted on being paid with 100 year-old money, they could travel back in time and own us all…
You pop your liberal agenda into everything don’t you? ;) Seriously though, this is only partly true. The tendency was that if you managed to live to be an adult, you tended to have a constitution that would allow you live longer. Now, more wealthy people may have had better nutrition, etc. and therefore made it to adulthood more often. They may also have avoided war and other problems. But LOTS of poor people also lived to be older than 70. In fact, in some cultures the poor people ate better overall than the rich because the rich would just eat meat (or whatever was expensive) and neglect other nutrition needs.
Are you sure about this? It seems like inflation would negate such gains. If the average income goes up, inflation usually goes up with it.
But LOTS of poor people also lived to be older than 70. In fact, in some cultures the poor people ate better overall than the rich because the rich would just eat meat (or whatever was expensive) and neglect other nutrition needs.
Um, what time period are you talking about?
Are you sure about this? It seems like inflation would negate such gains. If the average income goes up, inflation usually goes up with it.
No, it really does go up. To pick a random source, here’s (non-inflation adjusted) personal income per capita for Rhode Island. According to this inflation calculator, that $1278 of income in 1945 is worth $12577 in 2002. So basically, income nearly tripled over the period, from a real dollar 1945 income of $12577 to a real dollar income of $31319 in 2002, an annual rate of 1.6%.
So I was exaggerating a bit; in 2040 per-capita personal income in New Hampshire will be 56k, or half again what it is today; in 2100, 146k. Still an awful lot of money.
Edit: Scratch the above; it’s not very specific. It’s easier to see growth with this tool thingy. Measuring between downturns in the business cycle (1933 to 2001) gets you 2.8% annual growth in real per-capita GDP. 1991 to 2001 gets you 2.2% annual growth, etc.
Delong’s Economic history of the 20th century has more on the huge income gains of industrialism. New products don’t show up in the income chart, either.
I believe in life after death, so I’m not driven to live forever. Shuffling off this mortal coil once my daughter is grown and my physical health wanes is optimum for me.
More money, but is there anything better to spend it on?
Is having 350 channels ten times as good as having 35?
I dont understand. Wont everything else be more expensive then too? Where are these paychecks with more money coming from? thin air?
Man, some serious long-run growth education needed around here.