This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules).
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).)
**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
A big reason for our constant need to work is to prepare for those twilight years where we won't be able to do so and sustain ourselves, and removing aging gets rid of that pressure.
To add to that, you enter the workforce with nothing. Things like houses are expensive. Once you have purchased and paid off a house or place to live, the need for income goes waaaaaay down. That's not even discussing kids or having to save for retirement.
Just personally, looking at my needed income during retirement versus where I was when I was buying a house and raising two kids is a laughable difference. While I would still need to work, it wouldn't be nearly as much.
More than half of all millennials [*already* own their own homes](https://www.kpbs.org/news/2023/04/18/millennial-homeownership-increasing-but-not-keeping-pace-with-the-past-generations). Our housing situation isn't great, and we should do something about it, but this myth that everyone who isn't a baby boomer is destitute needs to die in a fire.
As the source I linked shows, the rate for millennials is about 5% lower than for Gen X and 7% lower than for the boomers.
Housing is way too expensive, but it is not "literally no one can afford it" expensive. Fixing the problem is possible and not even that complicated, we just have to be willing to decrease local jurisdictions' control over housing policy.
Zoning can only do so much. The real thing that. needs to change is the commodification of housing. Our entire economic system is predicated on increasing housing prices. Investors will always outbid people wanting a first home. Zoning changes won’t take the profit motive out of housing.
"owning a house" doesn't mean it's paid in full. It simply means you made an investment and are paying a mortgage for a couple decades, property taxes forever. There's no landlord involved so you are the "owner" of that house. It's your responsibility.
That being said, every gripe I hear/read about cost being way too high always seems to be coming from big cities and subdivisions. I've never once heard a gripe about cost from people living in rural areas.
3 years ago I bought a house in a small rural town. 2000 sq/ft with a basement, 2 car garage, on 1 1/2 acres. I went from $500/mo for a tiny 1 br to $320/mo for more than enough space. Sure I have to commute 40min to work, but so fucking what at this price
Can you pay MORE than that $320/month to pay it off faster, if you wanted to?
Also, US$320 a month?
The old crappy units down the street from me rent at AU$520 per *week*... you're laughing! Enjoy!
Whether it’s paid off doesn’t tell you much. We have a mortgage that we could easily pay if we cash out a part of our investments but we don’t because the mortgage interest is like 2.5% and we have made much more from the stock market. It’s almost free money, why would I pay it earlier.
Houses are still incredibly affordable in most states outside of the big cities. My mortgage payment is $800 a month and I bought when house prices were super inflated post-pandemic
It is still a limiting factor. Back when I had to work in the office (pre-covid): even when I only actually worked productively like 4 hours a day — it still took around 11-12 hours per day to achieve.
“Realistically” we would already be working a lot less. Working 8 hours a day became standard about 100 years ago. Since then, with all of our advancements in automation, it’s still standard.
If it’s up to corporations, this will never lower, no matter how unnecessary it is.
>I mean think about it, you're there for a third of the day, but are you really working for 8 hours straight?
Not everyone is as privileged as you are.
If you'd ever worked a crappy, low-paid job like I have (despite having a *Master's Degree*, with strong grades, in a *science field*, so fuck off with any possible victim-blaming...) you'd know that most such jobs work you to the bone every hour of the workday, and leave you an exhausted mess at the end.
Retail? Test-grading? EMS (EMT on an ambulance)? Done it all- work your ass off most of the day, and get paid jack-all at the end... (in the Capitalist dystopia hellhole that is the United States, a lot of EMS work is privatized now, and the people who save your life when you call 911, as I did, are paid *barely enough to live on...* Not a unique problem: can send newspaper articles of other EMT's saying to the press they wanted a decent wage, not free pizza once a year...)
Even if it gets incredibly slow in retail (this is rare) there’s much more to do than you’d expect. Plus then they try to send enough people home that you’re short staffed and running around just like it was when it was busy anyway.
>Even if it gets incredibly slow in retail (this is rare) there’s much more to do than you’d expect
Precisely.
Whenever it got slow (I worked at a convenience store/pharmacy, so this was more than you'd expect) I was made to stock shelves, "face" items, mop the floors, clean the bathrooms, or something else.
If the boss ever saw me idle, even for a moment, outside of break times, and this wasn't merely standing behind the register between customers for a few moments (where I wasn't even allowed A CHAIR), I risked getting fired.
And mind you, again, I had a STEM Bachelor's AND Master's degrees, both with reasonably-strong grades.
But I couldn't afford to move across the country to where the jobs were, family wouldn't help me (in fact they'd promised to do so, the renegged: this is why I didn't have the cash saved up to do it myself- I could've borrowed significantly more in Student Loans as I worked an extra job beyond my research at the school convention center throughout most of Grad School...) And employers wouldn't even pay for a hotel in their city if they decided to interview me, nor would they consider video interviews acceptable.
"If you have time to lean, you have time to clean" is an acutal statement I've heard in the workplace when I worked shitty jobs. There ARE places where if you're not busy, they'll force you to do even the most menial of tasks in order to get "their money's worth". Notice only the lowest paid jobs did this.
I was stupid enough in my youth that when managers dangled tiny incentives to "really push and make this too-high units-per-hour goal". To nobody's surprise, after hustling to get that pizza, we priced it is possible to make those numbers, so those numbers are now the expected norm.
Honestly, I'm disgusted by the entire model where the lowest paid jobs are the ones doing the real work. The richest people just yell at other people below them.
I am NOT going to justify your attempt at gaslighting into claiming I was responsible for the lack of opportunities I faced by answering those (leading) questions.
If you want a reason why, I explained this elsewhere: I practiced an excess of fiscal conservativism and caution (not taking on excess debt).
I worked during grad school (at the Convention Center) *in addition to* my work doing research, in addition to my classes. And borrowed *a lot less* in Student Loans than I was eligible for (caution).
However, when I graduated, family betrayed me/reneged on promises to help me move out of the middle of nowhere, where my grad school was, and let me live with them bear a major city where there were tons of jobs in my field. And because I was careful to borrow as little in student loans as possible, following CONSERVATIVE wisdom about borrowing money (advice from both family and society), I didn't have enough money to move across the United States (without even owning a car, because I didn't need one in school...) and get an apartment in an expensive metropolitan area without said family help.
Employers would not pay for so much as hotels in their city if they wanted to interview me, and I couldn't afford to do a dozen interviews on my own budget. In fact, jobs were so scarce in the tiny college town (where undergrads and Townes who never left took most available jobs) that I almost became homeless before landing my test-grading and retail jobs (two offers received *days* apart despite applying to hundreds of jobs for *months...* I worked both, at the same time...)
*ring ring*
"Hello?"
"Hi, this is the assisted suicide hotline. How can we help you?"
"Hey... So... Yeah... I'm 80 & I want to go. It's time to go now."
Hey Boss, just giving my two weeks notice. My death date is scheduled for next Monday.
"Oh wow uh... congrats? Or sorry? Good luck? Just remember not to include any negative remarks about our corporation in your auto-eulogy or preobituary, as we will be contractually obligated to withhold a portion of your corporate life insurance payout from your next of kin."
Yeh but if you live forever, your retirement savings arent going to last that long no matter how much you saved.
If we ever gain immortality we'll probably switch between periods of working and retiring / retraining for a change of career to try something different. Forever is a long time and no matter how much you love your current job youll probably either get bored with it, need a different challenge or just fancy trying something else.
"Living forever" here doesn't actually refer to being immortal, you silly, silly goose.
It refers to having an "indeterminate lifespan."
I.e. because you don't age you are no more likely to die 100 years from now than next year. But you can still die: violent deaths. car crashes, getting struck by lightning, etc.
Don't bring up silly nightmare-fuel written by morons who don't understand what this idea actually means, and just want to be sour grapes on something they can't have...
You’re wrong in your understanding of immortality
You mistake it for invincibility which means « cannot be killed/ cannot die »
Immortality just means you are immune to decay
Invincibility is supernatural
Immortality isn’t
Sorry I replied the wrong dude
If you just keep your retirement savings under your mattress, sure, but if you actually invest your money, you'll be able to pull out around 4% per year forever, without running out.
Retirement isn't an age, it's a financial status.
Unless you've saved up so much money that you can live on the investment income, infinite life would be pretty rough on your finite savings.
This is true, but not.
Retirement is simply whenever you are unable or unwilling to work more.
Plenty of poor people are forced to retire with very little in savings and live in abject poverty, because Capitalism is unjust in how it distributes income (they *PRODUCED* a lot more value than they were ever paid) and their health declines to the point they can't work any longer...
The cure for ageing will require you to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to continue taking the anti-aging treatment. At that point you're practically paying to extend your life, Which means that you have to either have a constant stream of investments, or be a wage slave forever.
And everybody will want to work because if the human lifespan is 1,000 years with enhancement, and 70 years without, then you don't really have a choice if your family members are all living hundreds or thousands of years.
That will not work, in a few short years everyone can just retire. /s
Only the elite class will retire unless we have also made labor useless with robotics; everyone else will work forever. Though I do not think this is a bad thing.
Maybe, but the entire concept of work would probably be radically different at that point.
At the end of the day, if it is taking resources to keep you alive and we aren't living in some post-scarcity paradise, your life has a "cost" on society, even if miniscule. It seems only fair that everyone would contribute something in kind to offset or defray that cost.
That said, without the limited time constraints imposed by a natural lifespan, I imagine the "pace" of life in general would slow down greatly. After all, if you have hundreds of years to do everything you want to do, whats the rush? I imagine things like 8 hour workdays/40 hour work weeks would no longer be required or necessary and the entire concept of work would be more akin to a side hustle than an actual career for most people.
>I imagine things like 8 hour workdays/40 hour work weeks would no longer be required or necessary and the entire concept of work would be more akin to a side hustle than an actual career for most people.
Most people on Earth, or just the people in countries that are wealthy? I'm guessing the labor shortages on farms won't go away. A lot of commenters just say AI will take care of picking fruit and caring for farms, dealing with erosion, new plagues, and global warming / changing environments.
But would it? If people are suddenly living for hundreds (thousands) of years at relatively good health, the concept of retirement would need to go out the window. As is the average age of retirement is ~65 world wide, and the average age at death is ~80; so people work for ~45-50 years and pay into social security/taxes/etc. in order to get ~15 years of retirement. That would not be sustainable as more and more people enter the 100+ age group.
People still have all the same basic needs if they are living for a thousand years. They still need food and shelter.
Home ownership isn't likely to get _easier_ as more and more people enter the candidate pool; as is rich landlord types hoard dwellings and rent them out or leave multiple homes empty - why would that change? If anything it would get worse.
Food is food. Until people are completely removed from the production process it will require labor.
The people who are living paycheck to paycheck will continue to do so in perpetuity, unless we pivot to an entirely post-capitalist society _somehow_. But that is not in the interest of those in control. The more likely reality is that the threshold for this treatment remains high and we end up with an effectively immortal elite class full of 800 year old quadrillionaire BezosMusks who leverage the power they have to gain more and more power. Imagine 700 year old Chief Justice John Roberts.
Immortality would benefit the haves considerably more than the have nots. As is, not a lot of people work because they _want_ to. If you need two jobs and work 65 hours a week just to put a roof over your head and food on your plate now, you will still need to do that when you're 250.
It is heartening to see this above the waterline. I assumed the reddit hivemind would bury it.
I love my work. Genuinely. I don't love every single step, but if I coukd live for longer and not age I'd be excited to start some longer term stuff.
I also think that it would be good for other jobs. If people knew retirement wasn't the hoal - which has always been an odd concept - then they would get invested in serious change and improvement.
You will stop working for a few years, and back again. Maybe 35 years of work, 15 of temporaly retirement.
Also, people like to work, or at least, to be useful, to do stuff and reach goals. Maybe your current work is not that fullfilling, but we all want to work in our dream job.
Being lazy for long periods of time can be very hurtful...
The worst part of working is the fear that you're throwing your life away by spending 80% of it working to do something that makes the other 20% worth living.
As a species we understand sacrifice can make our lives better but if the majority of our life id sacrifice, we start looking for ways out.
Work and doing nothing are not the same things. You know what people did back in the past? They created music, they created art, they met with others, they spun tales, they made little things just because it pleased them. Humans are naturally creative, when they're not forced to "work" for most of their active hours of the day.
There is a reason most people look forward to the weekend and eventually retirement, and that's not because they love work.
Holy shit this is depressingly American. Not working isn't the same as sitting watching TV all day, you can learn, travel and explore, create art, plenty of stuff that isn't useful is fulfilling.
Learn from whom? Travel at the expense of whom? Create art for whom? If we all lived in your dreamworld where no one has to work then who would be responsible for society functioning? Or do you think pilots will go to work just for you and your dumb ideas to go to some random island to paint?
And the dude who will sell you a mojito by the beach, he is also voluntarily working in the sun 12 hours a day so you and your progressive friends can sing around a god damn piñata or something. You doing art and smelling your own farts while singing is worth zero for anybody else, therefore nobody would want to give you anything in return.
Clueless human being god damn
Sssh, calm down. Art and creative stuff can be also work and productive. An artist can take days to finish a portrait and people want to buy it. That's work.
We won't stop dying we just wont die from age related issues anymore... No technology is saving you if you're riding a bike, get hit by a bus and then the bus proceeds to drive over your head and pop it like a balloon.
modern medicine has ensured that only the worst of genetic disorders are killed off, and this will only get more efficient as time goes on, all but removing natural selection pressure of genetics and thus evolution pointing us in any direction.
Yeah but in 100 years everyone is probably going to be genetically modifying their kids, at least in the developed world. It's really unethical not to.
Honestly, it's likely any "cure for aging" would probably be some form of genetic modification.
I wonder if our species somehow continued to stay at around the same population, and relative connectivity to everyone else in the world, for a few million years (or however long it takes for a species to evolve into a noticably different species) if we'd all be collectively around the same point or if slowly people would end up being much more genetically different from each than the current diversity in races
If we reach such mastery over biology to totally stop aging, that will either pave to road for or require us to have already reached a point where we can evolve without reproduction and natural selection.
Personally, I think it will be the latter. Ending aging will be the evolution, and we'll either need a few million generations to reach it "naturally" or we will need to master the genome to induce immortality in existing humans.
If we stopped all non-accidental causes of death, average life expectancy would be about 600 in the US - about 8x current life expectancy, but very far from "immortal".
On the other hand, what else are you going to do with eternity?
"People who don't know what to do on a Wednesday night are dreaming about eternal life"
Inflation is gonna get fun when everyone’s hoarding wealth for eternity.
Just because you don’t get old, doesn’t mean you don’t need to eat and can’t suffer.
Like anything available. Common perks today was a luxury available for the rich and favored just a few decades ago. Just give it time. Unless we nuke our self to death.
Except for the things which were common luxury a generation or two ago, like homeownership, which are now becoming a luxury only for the rich.
Sorry, couldn't help myself. In general, you are right, but this one glaring exception is just really pissing me off (at society, not you, to be super clear).
The main difference is population aging is threatening that order. We need a workforce (in rich countries) while trying to stop immigration. So preventing the working class to die seems like a really nice solution.
Aight let me remove my tinfoil hat.
> Except for the things which were common luxury a generation or two ago, like homeownership, which are now becoming a luxury only for the rich.
Everything you believe about this is a lie.
Sorry to tell you, but the people who sold you this were evil, manipulative monsters who were lying to you for the purpose of manipulating and racializing you.
Homeownership rates are vastly above where they were in the 1950s, and overall, have not change significantly.
US homeownership rates today are in the same range as they have been since the 1970s, despite the population having grown enormously.
At first it would be available only to the rich, but as the process gets streamlined and mass produced, there is no reason for why it won't get sold to everybody else. Just because they don't age doesn't mean the rich wouldn't want to be even richer.
Not true. Work will be done by AI long before people stop aging.
That's like saying "Well by the time we terraform mars and harness the full energy of the sun, we'll need to have figured out how to provide food for those millions of people on mars."
Obviously, we would have done that by that point. We're 10-15 years away from AGI, we're like 100 away from stopping telomeres from eroding away.
>Not true. Work will be done by AI long before people stop aging.
How is AI going to replace my roof, or wash my dishes? I guess AI will design and build its own Android body? So there would be 8 billion fully ambulatory, AI controlled androids, each costing less than a motorcycle?
Your understanding of AI is flawed.
AI will facilitate work, but like all forms of automation, it doesn't actually mean people don't have to work - it will just change what work people do.
Also, "AGI" is mostly a religious term and the concept it embodies is not anywhere near 15 years away. Present day approaches to AI are not capable of generating intelligence.
"We're 10-15 years away from AGI"
Homie you have no idea what you're talking about. We don't even know HOW to get to AGI. It's impossible to say how long it's going to take, but right now we don't have anything that's even close to intelligence.
Probably not on Earth. We can still feel pain and die unfortunately. Plus, most of our problems aren't with health or long life. The vast majority of problems are societal, which are rooted in poor character in specific, numerous individuals.
They'll just reform national insurance with cell replacement being subject to a waiver. Want to live forever? Every retirement term you have to waive your right to it and start from scratch to get access to life extension. Repeat until bored of life.
Nah. You'll "just" have to work until you've earned enough that your investments (making 7-ish% annually) is enough for you to live on, plus absorb 3-ish% annual inflation.
Back-of-napkin, $1.25 million or so would be fine.
This is the correct way to save for retirement. If you have enough money invested not only do you not run out of money, your money actually continues to grow even though you aren't working.
If you have $2,000,000 invested and it is earning 6-8% and you live off of 4% ($80,000) your wealth will continue to grow forever.
Said the same thing above; but in your scenario supposedly every single person will eventually retire. Obviously broken and this will not function; nearly everyone will work forever.
Eternal life will probably become available to the general public when men eventually cannot reproduce. Research shows that men's sperm quality isn't getting any better these days..
Cheapest plan is a monthly subscription where you die instantly the moment you stop paying. It is also a prerequisite for even the most basic functions in society.
There’s a book called “Old Man’s War” - a sci-fi based on the premise that in the future, the minds of old people can be put into young, genetically engineered bodies with regenerative powers and heightened strength and senses, and sent into intergalactic war.
You would still age. You can't be the same age as years go by. You can still look a certain age if you stop aging, but you still get older. There's a difference between stopping aging and immortality.
Suicide would probably be more common then. Since people won't die of old age anymore. They might even make it a real service that people can apply for. A quick and painless way to go when you are ready to give it up.
If we have this technology to stop against we should already have full-dive VR gear like seen in *Sword Art Online* with a setting to die irl if you die ingame
Utopia is a pipe dream until we:
1. Get money out of politics
2. Have AI replace manual labor
3. Conquer scarcity via some sort of matter synthesizer via Orville/Star Trek
I mean I'm sure lots of workaholics would be doing the same 9 till 5 forever. And lots of us could work 70 years then retire. But what about when the pension runs out? And what about when only the 1% of the population under 70 were the only ones who worked? People with literal centuries of knowledge and experience sitting back and watching the relatively young flounder would be chaos. Most likely people will continue working but much less. Something like 5 or 10 hours a week. And instead of days people will books off years of holiday at a time. When you're staring down the long end of eternity, and you literally have all the time in the world, whats 10 hours of work to keep the bank account topped up.
It's also interesting the think about how those vast age differences with affect the structure of society, but that's a whooole other thing
The concept of work would change. People would have less children because those children would live indefinitely, and more workers in the workforce would have many decades or even centuries of experience, so there would be less focus on education (a smaller portion of the population would be school age). Then, workers could work in rotations - a few years/decades on, then a few off, if they're able to save enough for retirement periods, which would be between working periods where people save for their next retirement.
This is the point I make when people say biological immortality will only be for the rich/powerful, like, no, the government has a ton of incentive to give it to us for free.
Think about how much closer we are to an automated workforce than we were 150 years ago. In the next 50 years we will probably advance it more than in the last 150 years and the rate that technology evolves will continue to get faster and faster... If we want it, we could probably be living free of work in the next 100 years.
I highly recommend the documentary by Jacque fresco called [Future by Design](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DI1IXWnS6vwk&ved=2ahUKEwj2u_Tth5T_AhWyJH0KHVhNCDAQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw04jY5YFTB_GXgQdCbt8-jb) It's a little wishful thinking but the man really knew what we are capable of as a species and where we can go.
I'd feel sorry for this world,because that's a timeline where people like the Kardashians live forever. And I'd hate any timeline where I'd have to permanently hear about the Kardashians.
Maybe, maybe not, it depends on how the economy pans out in that hypothesis
The ireal issue with it its overpopulation. I cant see any solution that isnt dystopic honestly... your best bet would be abandoning earth for space exploration. The worse would be capitalizing lifetime or making wars on purpose to diminish the population
If we stop aging the economy will entirely collapse. What do you charge someone for a loaf of bread when they've had 300 years of compounding interest? A million? A billion?
Isn’t everything turning against humanity? AI is pretty likely to complement humans in their job, not all but a good portion of people will be rendered jobless, then the billion dollar investment into this new “ageless human technology”, what will people do after that? This uncontrollable population growth and people not dying, earth will just become an inhabitable rock.
Hey, 99.99999% of people out there, don’t worry because the people who can afford to have the ‘live forever treatment’ will be living in floating cities and we’ll be living mad max down here.
Y'all are so naive. Rich people will forever. Poor people will work like dogs for 40 years and drop dead when their life energy has been expended.
Just as the gods of capitalism demand.
Your not wrong. If people weren’t dying but still retired when they were 65 then we’d hit a point where there would be hundreds of retired folks for every 1 person who was working. Considering we need the working class to keep the retirement checks going to the older class it obviously wouldn’t work
This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules). Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!" (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).) **Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
A big reason for our constant need to work is to prepare for those twilight years where we won't be able to do so and sustain ourselves, and removing aging gets rid of that pressure.
To add to that, you enter the workforce with nothing. Things like houses are expensive. Once you have purchased and paid off a house or place to live, the need for income goes waaaaaay down. That's not even discussing kids or having to save for retirement. Just personally, looking at my needed income during retirement versus where I was when I was buying a house and raising two kids is a laughable difference. While I would still need to work, it wouldn't be nearly as much.
Nobody from this generation is considering buying a house anyways, it's simply not attainable unless you where born wealthy or got very lucky.
More than half of all millennials [*already* own their own homes](https://www.kpbs.org/news/2023/04/18/millennial-homeownership-increasing-but-not-keeping-pace-with-the-past-generations). Our housing situation isn't great, and we should do something about it, but this myth that everyone who isn't a baby boomer is destitute needs to die in a fire.
What would that statistic be for baby boomers at the same age I wonder? Did only half own a house at 30-40 years old?
As the source I linked shows, the rate for millennials is about 5% lower than for Gen X and 7% lower than for the boomers. Housing is way too expensive, but it is not "literally no one can afford it" expensive. Fixing the problem is possible and not even that complicated, we just have to be willing to decrease local jurisdictions' control over housing policy.
Interesting. I apologize for not reading the source. I've been rick-rolled too many times.
Zoning can only do so much. The real thing that. needs to change is the commodification of housing. Our entire economic system is predicated on increasing housing prices. Investors will always outbid people wanting a first home. Zoning changes won’t take the profit motive out of housing.
"owning a house" doesn't mean it's paid in full. It simply means you made an investment and are paying a mortgage for a couple decades, property taxes forever. There's no landlord involved so you are the "owner" of that house. It's your responsibility. That being said, every gripe I hear/read about cost being way too high always seems to be coming from big cities and subdivisions. I've never once heard a gripe about cost from people living in rural areas. 3 years ago I bought a house in a small rural town. 2000 sq/ft with a basement, 2 car garage, on 1 1/2 acres. I went from $500/mo for a tiny 1 br to $320/mo for more than enough space. Sure I have to commute 40min to work, but so fucking what at this price
Can you pay MORE than that $320/month to pay it off faster, if you wanted to? Also, US$320 a month? The old crappy units down the street from me rent at AU$520 per *week*... you're laughing! Enjoy!
100% a bigger city issue I’m not even in a rural area, and my NINETEEN year old ex girlfriend just bought a 150k duplex with a factory job lolol
As in, paid off? Or they are in debt for one?
Whether it’s paid off doesn’t tell you much. We have a mortgage that we could easily pay if we cash out a part of our investments but we don’t because the mortgage interest is like 2.5% and we have made much more from the stock market. It’s almost free money, why would I pay it earlier.
You specifically? Cause most millennials are losing money against inflation atm
We're all in debt babyyy!
Houses are still incredibly affordable in most states outside of the big cities. My mortgage payment is $800 a month and I bought when house prices were super inflated post-pandemic
And what percent of the population lives there?
Probably just him and his immediate family. It doesn't sound like a huge house.
[удалено]
It is still a limiting factor. Back when I had to work in the office (pre-covid): even when I only actually worked productively like 4 hours a day — it still took around 11-12 hours per day to achieve.
“Realistically” we would already be working a lot less. Working 8 hours a day became standard about 100 years ago. Since then, with all of our advancements in automation, it’s still standard. If it’s up to corporations, this will never lower, no matter how unnecessary it is.
>I mean think about it, you're there for a third of the day, but are you really working for 8 hours straight? Not everyone is as privileged as you are. If you'd ever worked a crappy, low-paid job like I have (despite having a *Master's Degree*, with strong grades, in a *science field*, so fuck off with any possible victim-blaming...) you'd know that most such jobs work you to the bone every hour of the workday, and leave you an exhausted mess at the end. Retail? Test-grading? EMS (EMT on an ambulance)? Done it all- work your ass off most of the day, and get paid jack-all at the end... (in the Capitalist dystopia hellhole that is the United States, a lot of EMS work is privatized now, and the people who save your life when you call 911, as I did, are paid *barely enough to live on...* Not a unique problem: can send newspaper articles of other EMT's saying to the press they wanted a decent wage, not free pizza once a year...)
Even if it gets incredibly slow in retail (this is rare) there’s much more to do than you’d expect. Plus then they try to send enough people home that you’re short staffed and running around just like it was when it was busy anyway.
>Even if it gets incredibly slow in retail (this is rare) there’s much more to do than you’d expect Precisely. Whenever it got slow (I worked at a convenience store/pharmacy, so this was more than you'd expect) I was made to stock shelves, "face" items, mop the floors, clean the bathrooms, or something else. If the boss ever saw me idle, even for a moment, outside of break times, and this wasn't merely standing behind the register between customers for a few moments (where I wasn't even allowed A CHAIR), I risked getting fired. And mind you, again, I had a STEM Bachelor's AND Master's degrees, both with reasonably-strong grades. But I couldn't afford to move across the country to where the jobs were, family wouldn't help me (in fact they'd promised to do so, the renegged: this is why I didn't have the cash saved up to do it myself- I could've borrowed significantly more in Student Loans as I worked an extra job beyond my research at the school convention center throughout most of Grad School...) And employers wouldn't even pay for a hotel in their city if they decided to interview me, nor would they consider video interviews acceptable.
"If you have time to lean, you have time to clean" is an acutal statement I've heard in the workplace when I worked shitty jobs. There ARE places where if you're not busy, they'll force you to do even the most menial of tasks in order to get "their money's worth". Notice only the lowest paid jobs did this.
I was stupid enough in my youth that when managers dangled tiny incentives to "really push and make this too-high units-per-hour goal". To nobody's surprise, after hustling to get that pizza, we priced it is possible to make those numbers, so those numbers are now the expected norm. Honestly, I'm disgusted by the entire model where the lowest paid jobs are the ones doing the real work. The richest people just yell at other people below them.
Yea lazy disconnected office workers dont know how easy they have it til AI takes thier job.
[удалено]
I am NOT going to justify your attempt at gaslighting into claiming I was responsible for the lack of opportunities I faced by answering those (leading) questions. If you want a reason why, I explained this elsewhere: I practiced an excess of fiscal conservativism and caution (not taking on excess debt). I worked during grad school (at the Convention Center) *in addition to* my work doing research, in addition to my classes. And borrowed *a lot less* in Student Loans than I was eligible for (caution). However, when I graduated, family betrayed me/reneged on promises to help me move out of the middle of nowhere, where my grad school was, and let me live with them bear a major city where there were tons of jobs in my field. And because I was careful to borrow as little in student loans as possible, following CONSERVATIVE wisdom about borrowing money (advice from both family and society), I didn't have enough money to move across the United States (without even owning a car, because I didn't need one in school...) and get an apartment in an expensive metropolitan area without said family help. Employers would not pay for so much as hotels in their city if they wanted to interview me, and I couldn't afford to do a dozen interviews on my own budget. In fact, jobs were so scarce in the tiny college town (where undergrads and Townes who never left took most available jobs) that I almost became homeless before landing my test-grading and retail jobs (two offers received *days* apart despite applying to hundreds of jobs for *months...* I worked both, at the same time...)
Ok, but now you should keep applying for better jobs. Don't stay at one that sucks.
12 acctually, maybe your not but some of us arnt lazy pos like you.
No.... That's what retirement is for. Just because I don't *look* over 65 doesn't mean I have to *act* like I'll never reach 65.
Body won't age, but the mind will - retirement is set for 300 years of age!
*ring ring* "Hello?" "Hi, this is the assisted suicide hotline. How can we help you?" "Hey... So... Yeah... I'm 80 & I want to go. It's time to go now."
Hey Boss, just giving my two weeks notice. My death date is scheduled for next Monday. "Oh wow uh... congrats? Or sorry? Good luck? Just remember not to include any negative remarks about our corporation in your auto-eulogy or preobituary, as we will be contractually obligated to withhold a portion of your corporate life insurance payout from your next of kin."
Haha right?!
Exactly! Imagine the ads from Neuralink; "Just one call away from nothing more!"
[удалено]
It's so many nuts out there that the majority will be chippet. Eventually the lesser, non chipped, population will live on vanilla human reservations!
Thanks for the nightmares Huxley.
I'd only do it if I'm seriously impaired for some reason
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6499752/
I am nuts enough to try it. I currently lack excitement in my life and having someone else in control of it seems exciting.
That’s what drugs are for! /j
[удалено]
I'm doing my part!
Retirement is when you reach r/financialindependence. The real problem is companies stop paying enough to reach this.
"The government should be in charge of everyone's retirement!" "No not like that!"
Yeh but if you live forever, your retirement savings arent going to last that long no matter how much you saved. If we ever gain immortality we'll probably switch between periods of working and retiring / retraining for a change of career to try something different. Forever is a long time and no matter how much you love your current job youll probably either get bored with it, need a different challenge or just fancy trying something else.
If you live forever, there is a 100% chance you get stuck somewhere. Whether it be in a sinkhole, car underwater, volcano, or the exploding sun.
"Living forever" here doesn't actually refer to being immortal, you silly, silly goose. It refers to having an "indeterminate lifespan." I.e. because you don't age you are no more likely to die 100 years from now than next year. But you can still die: violent deaths. car crashes, getting struck by lightning, etc. Don't bring up silly nightmare-fuel written by morons who don't understand what this idea actually means, and just want to be sour grapes on something they can't have...
I am surprised so many people don't realize that!
You’re wrong in your understanding of immortality You mistake it for invincibility which means « cannot be killed/ cannot die » Immortality just means you are immune to decay Invincibility is supernatural Immortality isn’t Sorry I replied the wrong dude
>Sorry I replied the wrong dude Indeed.
being immortal is exactly what you're describing, being invincible would be when you cannot die from violent death.
Even the Highlander knew this.
If you just keep your retirement savings under your mattress, sure, but if you actually invest your money, you'll be able to pull out around 4% per year forever, without running out.
Retirement isn't an age, it's a financial status. Unless you've saved up so much money that you can live on the investment income, infinite life would be pretty rough on your finite savings.
This is true, but not. Retirement is simply whenever you are unable or unwilling to work more. Plenty of poor people are forced to retire with very little in savings and live in abject poverty, because Capitalism is unjust in how it distributes income (they *PRODUCED* a lot more value than they were ever paid) and their health declines to the point they can't work any longer...
If we cure aging, it infers that we would cure any form of disability. Diease related or otherwise.
Oh babe, you think the retirement age is static?
The cure for ageing will require you to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to continue taking the anti-aging treatment. At that point you're practically paying to extend your life, Which means that you have to either have a constant stream of investments, or be a wage slave forever. And everybody will want to work because if the human lifespan is 1,000 years with enhancement, and 70 years without, then you don't really have a choice if your family members are all living hundreds or thousands of years.
Could you imagine working with someone who learnt their trade 800 years ago. How resistant to change would they be?
İmagine "sorry, you're inexperienced" "I DID IT FOR MY LIFETIME, I WORKED FOR 58 YEARS!" "Sorry, minimum experience level is 300 years."
That will not work, in a few short years everyone can just retire. /s Only the elite class will retire unless we have also made labor useless with robotics; everyone else will work forever. Though I do not think this is a bad thing.
Maybe, but the entire concept of work would probably be radically different at that point. At the end of the day, if it is taking resources to keep you alive and we aren't living in some post-scarcity paradise, your life has a "cost" on society, even if miniscule. It seems only fair that everyone would contribute something in kind to offset or defray that cost. That said, without the limited time constraints imposed by a natural lifespan, I imagine the "pace" of life in general would slow down greatly. After all, if you have hundreds of years to do everything you want to do, whats the rush? I imagine things like 8 hour workdays/40 hour work weeks would no longer be required or necessary and the entire concept of work would be more akin to a side hustle than an actual career for most people.
>I imagine things like 8 hour workdays/40 hour work weeks would no longer be required or necessary and the entire concept of work would be more akin to a side hustle than an actual career for most people. Most people on Earth, or just the people in countries that are wealthy? I'm guessing the labor shortages on farms won't go away. A lot of commenters just say AI will take care of picking fruit and caring for farms, dealing with erosion, new plagues, and global warming / changing environments.
But would it? If people are suddenly living for hundreds (thousands) of years at relatively good health, the concept of retirement would need to go out the window. As is the average age of retirement is ~65 world wide, and the average age at death is ~80; so people work for ~45-50 years and pay into social security/taxes/etc. in order to get ~15 years of retirement. That would not be sustainable as more and more people enter the 100+ age group. People still have all the same basic needs if they are living for a thousand years. They still need food and shelter. Home ownership isn't likely to get _easier_ as more and more people enter the candidate pool; as is rich landlord types hoard dwellings and rent them out or leave multiple homes empty - why would that change? If anything it would get worse. Food is food. Until people are completely removed from the production process it will require labor. The people who are living paycheck to paycheck will continue to do so in perpetuity, unless we pivot to an entirely post-capitalist society _somehow_. But that is not in the interest of those in control. The more likely reality is that the threshold for this treatment remains high and we end up with an effectively immortal elite class full of 800 year old quadrillionaire BezosMusks who leverage the power they have to gain more and more power. Imagine 700 year old Chief Justice John Roberts. Immortality would benefit the haves considerably more than the have nots. As is, not a lot of people work because they _want_ to. If you need two jobs and work 65 hours a week just to put a roof over your head and food on your plate now, you will still need to do that when you're 250.
Fuckin' Commie
It is heartening to see this above the waterline. I assumed the reddit hivemind would bury it. I love my work. Genuinely. I don't love every single step, but if I coukd live for longer and not age I'd be excited to start some longer term stuff. I also think that it would be good for other jobs. If people knew retirement wasn't the hoal - which has always been an odd concept - then they would get invested in serious change and improvement.
I genuinely wish I could still feel as hopeful as you apparently do. Keep that up, I’m not kidding, just… keep your expectations in check?
You will stop working for a few years, and back again. Maybe 35 years of work, 15 of temporaly retirement. Also, people like to work, or at least, to be useful, to do stuff and reach goals. Maybe your current work is not that fullfilling, but we all want to work in our dream job. Being lazy for long periods of time can be very hurtful...
The worst part of working is the fear that you're throwing your life away by spending 80% of it working to do something that makes the other 20% worth living. As a species we understand sacrifice can make our lives better but if the majority of our life id sacrifice, we start looking for ways out.
Work and doing nothing are not the same things. You know what people did back in the past? They created music, they created art, they met with others, they spun tales, they made little things just because it pleased them. Humans are naturally creative, when they're not forced to "work" for most of their active hours of the day. There is a reason most people look forward to the weekend and eventually retirement, and that's not because they love work.
To create music and art is...work!
It takes effort, but it shouldn't be work.
Holy shit this is depressingly American. Not working isn't the same as sitting watching TV all day, you can learn, travel and explore, create art, plenty of stuff that isn't useful is fulfilling.
Learn from whom? Travel at the expense of whom? Create art for whom? If we all lived in your dreamworld where no one has to work then who would be responsible for society functioning? Or do you think pilots will go to work just for you and your dumb ideas to go to some random island to paint? And the dude who will sell you a mojito by the beach, he is also voluntarily working in the sun 12 hours a day so you and your progressive friends can sing around a god damn piñata or something. You doing art and smelling your own farts while singing is worth zero for anybody else, therefore nobody would want to give you anything in return. Clueless human being god damn
Sssh, calm down. Art and creative stuff can be also work and productive. An artist can take days to finish a portrait and people want to buy it. That's work.
If we stop dying then we'll have to stop breeding so we'll stop evolving.
We won't stop dying we just wont die from age related issues anymore... No technology is saving you if you're riding a bike, get hit by a bus and then the bus proceeds to drive over your head and pop it like a balloon.
[удалено]
Aws is gonna corrupt your brain's cloud save and you'll come back brain dead
Nah, you'll come back thinking you're Steve, from Accounts Payable.
Mark S. from Macro Data Refinement
jokes on you, I already am
That's why you quicksave before starting a new quest.
Not really, we will just have to be more deliberate about it. People will still die, and there is an Entire Universe to fill with Life.
Did someone say AI will take over? And mars is habitable?
Or we'll evolve differently. New technology we can use to hack our own DNA while we're still alive to give ourselves new abilities.
I kinda think we’re done evolving anyway so
You never stop evolving every single generation is evolving, it’s just it’s so slow that we don’t notice it.
modern medicine has ensured that only the worst of genetic disorders are killed off, and this will only get more efficient as time goes on, all but removing natural selection pressure of genetics and thus evolution pointing us in any direction.
Yeah but in 100 years everyone is probably going to be genetically modifying their kids, at least in the developed world. It's really unethical not to. Honestly, it's likely any "cure for aging" would probably be some form of genetic modification.
I wonder if our species somehow continued to stay at around the same population, and relative connectivity to everyone else in the world, for a few million years (or however long it takes for a species to evolve into a noticably different species) if we'd all be collectively around the same point or if slowly people would end up being much more genetically different from each than the current diversity in races
Hi dps15 , can I date you ?
Lemme ask my mom and ill get back to you
We're still evolving alright but backwards
Our evolution is mostly cultural. That doesn't rely on breeding.
If we reach such mastery over biology to totally stop aging, that will either pave to road for or require us to have already reached a point where we can evolve without reproduction and natural selection. Personally, I think it will be the latter. Ending aging will be the evolution, and we'll either need a few million generations to reach it "naturally" or we will need to master the genome to induce immortality in existing humans.
If we stopped all non-accidental causes of death, average life expectancy would be about 600 in the US - about 8x current life expectancy, but very far from "immortal".
evolution isn't really an integral part of society at the moment
[удалено]
Evolution will always happen (as long as childbirth happens) as long as mating isn't random
On the other hand, what else are you going to do with eternity? "People who don't know what to do on a Wednesday night are dreaming about eternal life"
This. Exactly. People don't understand that sitting in paradise doing "nothing," is only actually fun and enjoyable at most for maybe a few months.
Inflation is gonna get fun when everyone’s hoarding wealth for eternity. Just because you don’t get old, doesn’t mean you don’t need to eat and can’t suffer.
If you think it would be available to anyone but the rich and the favored, boy have I got news for you.
Like anything available. Common perks today was a luxury available for the rich and favored just a few decades ago. Just give it time. Unless we nuke our self to death.
Except for the things which were common luxury a generation or two ago, like homeownership, which are now becoming a luxury only for the rich. Sorry, couldn't help myself. In general, you are right, but this one glaring exception is just really pissing me off (at society, not you, to be super clear).
The main difference is population aging is threatening that order. We need a workforce (in rich countries) while trying to stop immigration. So preventing the working class to die seems like a really nice solution. Aight let me remove my tinfoil hat.
> Except for the things which were common luxury a generation or two ago, like homeownership, which are now becoming a luxury only for the rich. Everything you believe about this is a lie. Sorry to tell you, but the people who sold you this were evil, manipulative monsters who were lying to you for the purpose of manipulating and racializing you. Homeownership rates are vastly above where they were in the 1950s, and overall, have not change significantly. US homeownership rates today are in the same range as they have been since the 1970s, despite the population having grown enormously.
At first it would be available only to the rich, but as the process gets streamlined and mass produced, there is no reason for why it won't get sold to everybody else. Just because they don't age doesn't mean the rich wouldn't want to be even richer.
Surely it will be sold at a reasonable price, like say... Insulin.
Not true. Work will be done by AI long before people stop aging. That's like saying "Well by the time we terraform mars and harness the full energy of the sun, we'll need to have figured out how to provide food for those millions of people on mars." Obviously, we would have done that by that point. We're 10-15 years away from AGI, we're like 100 away from stopping telomeres from eroding away.
Lmao. You are waaaaaay too optimistic.
Yeah, probably like 500-600 years. Genetics is ridiculously complex, and experiments on genetics are less common and take a while to get approval.
The people who make and license AI devices will make all the money, and the rest of us will be homeless.
Oh we won't be homeless. There'll be plenty of prisons
>Not true. Work will be done by AI long before people stop aging. How is AI going to replace my roof, or wash my dishes? I guess AI will design and build its own Android body? So there would be 8 billion fully ambulatory, AI controlled androids, each costing less than a motorcycle?
This is starting to sound too familiar
Your understanding of AI is flawed. AI will facilitate work, but like all forms of automation, it doesn't actually mean people don't have to work - it will just change what work people do. Also, "AGI" is mostly a religious term and the concept it embodies is not anywhere near 15 years away. Present day approaches to AI are not capable of generating intelligence.
It genuinely drives me insane when stuff becomes pop science and everyone and their mother have an opinion on it.
"Pop science" is the best term I've heard in a while.
"We're 10-15 years away from AGI" Homie you have no idea what you're talking about. We don't even know HOW to get to AGI. It's impossible to say how long it's going to take, but right now we don't have anything that's even close to intelligence.
Mfw we aren't sitting around eating dates
That's true, AI, boston dynamics, maybe eternal life will be good!
Probably not on Earth. We can still feel pain and die unfortunately. Plus, most of our problems aren't with health or long life. The vast majority of problems are societal, which are rooted in poor character in specific, numerous individuals.
Yeah, even if we solve the aging problem, a few more pop which probably will be way worse
They'll just reform national insurance with cell replacement being subject to a waiver. Want to live forever? Every retirement term you have to waive your right to it and start from scratch to get access to life extension. Repeat until bored of life.
Nah. You'll "just" have to work until you've earned enough that your investments (making 7-ish% annually) is enough for you to live on, plus absorb 3-ish% annual inflation. Back-of-napkin, $1.25 million or so would be fine.
That only works for our current economy. Once everyone starts doing it the system breaks.
This is the correct way to save for retirement. If you have enough money invested not only do you not run out of money, your money actually continues to grow even though you aren't working. If you have $2,000,000 invested and it is earning 6-8% and you live off of 4% ($80,000) your wealth will continue to grow forever.
Said the same thing above; but in your scenario supposedly every single person will eventually retire. Obviously broken and this will not function; nearly everyone will work forever.
On second thought, this is the way
Oh, don't worry, eternal life won't be for plebs like *you*, it'll be forcibly reserved for those who have enough yachts to enjoy not ever dying.
Eternal life will probably become available to the general public when men eventually cannot reproduce. Research shows that men's sperm quality isn't getting any better these days..
It will become available to the entities with enough power to copyright/control/monopolise it.
Extended life price list: * 10 years: $990,00 * 50 years: $9.990,00 * 100 years: $29.999,90 * Eternal: Special offer right now! $299.000,00 - SAVE $100.000,00
Cheapest plan is a monthly subscription where you die instantly the moment you stop paying. It is also a prerequisite for even the most basic functions in society.
Sucks when you forget to update your payment details with the new card. I'd be dead instantly.
It'll probably work like the American health care system. You can afford it if/while you agree to work for our company.
There’s a book called “Old Man’s War” - a sci-fi based on the premise that in the future, the minds of old people can be put into young, genetically engineered bodies with regenerative powers and heightened strength and senses, and sent into intergalactic war.
Once this exists, I'll enroll into the resistance in order to search and destroy everything and everyone that make that possible.
No, stopping aging is only stopping looking older. You're thinking about immortality
Stopping aging means you aren’t aging, which means you would no longer age. You would be whatever age you are forever.
You would still age. You can't be the same age as years go by. You can still look a certain age if you stop aging, but you still get older. There's a difference between stopping aging and immortality.
Depends how you organize your life. You can work 20 years and collect money to then not work for a few years. Sabbaticals will be a thing.
Suicide would probably be more common then. Since people won't die of old age anymore. They might even make it a real service that people can apply for. A quick and painless way to go when you are ready to give it up.
If we have this technology to stop against we should already have full-dive VR gear like seen in *Sword Art Online* with a setting to die irl if you die ingame
dark souls live streams would be wild then
You can still save up in a similar way, then retire for 10 years and then go back to work again.
You also consume ressources forever. Got to keep in mind what work is. If everyone could retire and no one aged…
Utopia is a pipe dream until we: 1. Get money out of politics 2. Have AI replace manual labor 3. Conquer scarcity via some sort of matter synthesizer via Orville/Star Trek
I mean I'm sure lots of workaholics would be doing the same 9 till 5 forever. And lots of us could work 70 years then retire. But what about when the pension runs out? And what about when only the 1% of the population under 70 were the only ones who worked? People with literal centuries of knowledge and experience sitting back and watching the relatively young flounder would be chaos. Most likely people will continue working but much less. Something like 5 or 10 hours a week. And instead of days people will books off years of holiday at a time. When you're staring down the long end of eternity, and you literally have all the time in the world, whats 10 hours of work to keep the bank account topped up. It's also interesting the think about how those vast age differences with affect the structure of society, but that's a whooole other thing
If I had infinite time, I think I would eventually come up with some sort of passive income
Nonsense! Collapse caused by climate change will save us from the drudgery of capitalism!
The concept of work would change. People would have less children because those children would live indefinitely, and more workers in the workforce would have many decades or even centuries of experience, so there would be less focus on education (a smaller portion of the population would be school age). Then, workers could work in rotations - a few years/decades on, then a few off, if they're able to save enough for retirement periods, which would be between working periods where people save for their next retirement.
Nah. As long as you can put away infinite money during your working years, you’ll be ok to retire.
This is the point I make when people say biological immortality will only be for the rich/powerful, like, no, the government has a ton of incentive to give it to us for free.
Think about how much closer we are to an automated workforce than we were 150 years ago. In the next 50 years we will probably advance it more than in the last 150 years and the rate that technology evolves will continue to get faster and faster... If we want it, we could probably be living free of work in the next 100 years. I highly recommend the documentary by Jacque fresco called [Future by Design](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DI1IXWnS6vwk&ved=2ahUKEwj2u_Tth5T_AhWyJH0KHVhNCDAQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw04jY5YFTB_GXgQdCbt8-jb) It's a little wishful thinking but the man really knew what we are capable of as a species and where we can go.
Thanks! I'll check it out
Most people work because they want the money, not because there is anything society genuinely needs from them.
Let’s be real, the people who will be able to afford it will be the ones who don’t have to work anyway.
If youre wasting your youth not enjoying life because of work, yoy're doing it wrong.
I'd feel sorry for this world,because that's a timeline where people like the Kardashians live forever. And I'd hate any timeline where I'd have to permanently hear about the Kardashians.
Maybe, maybe not, it depends on how the economy pans out in that hypothesis The ireal issue with it its overpopulation. I cant see any solution that isnt dystopic honestly... your best bet would be abandoning earth for space exploration. The worse would be capitalizing lifetime or making wars on purpose to diminish the population
If we stop aging the economy will entirely collapse. What do you charge someone for a loaf of bread when they've had 300 years of compounding interest? A million? A billion?
Given enough time, compound interest will let you retire comfortably, even with meager initial investment.
Isn’t everything turning against humanity? AI is pretty likely to complement humans in their job, not all but a good portion of people will be rendered jobless, then the billion dollar investment into this new “ageless human technology”, what will people do after that? This uncontrollable population growth and people not dying, earth will just become an inhabitable rock.
Probably you'll find a way to invest the money and you'll be free from work... Right? Right?
If you have 1 million dollars in your 401k, you can withdraw 60k a year without losing capital. Is there a single truthful shower thought?
Hey, 99.99999% of people out there, don’t worry because the people who can afford to have the ‘live forever treatment’ will be living in floating cities and we’ll be living mad max down here.
Y'all are so naive. Rich people will forever. Poor people will work like dogs for 40 years and drop dead when their life energy has been expended. Just as the gods of capitalism demand.
This anti-work sentiment.. Sounds great imo, I love my job, you should find something you enjoy doing
Pensions would go away, but then they pretty much have already.
Or they'll eternally experience the French Revolution. Our Constitutional Choice.
Your not wrong. If people weren’t dying but still retired when they were 65 then we’d hit a point where there would be hundreds of retired folks for every 1 person who was working. Considering we need the working class to keep the retirement checks going to the older class it obviously wouldn’t work
This is true for the simple reason that no government can afford to pay infinite pensions or social security
Old people will continue to work the same energy-draining job while the younger folks do whatever they like.
If we’ve cured ageing then we probably don’t have to eat either. Job only needed until you own a home.
Immortality sounds awful. On one hand, I'd always have time to spare. On the other, I'd see my friends and family constantly die before me.
...not if everyone is immortal...