Chambahs Posted October 3, 2009 Report Posted October 3, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20091002/hl_hsn/halfofusbabieslivingtodaymayreach100 If current life expectancy trends continue, more than half of babies born in rich nations since 2000 will live to 100 years of age, and they'll have less disability than elderly people in previous generations. That's the conclusion of researchers who found that increases in life expectancy evident in rich nations since 1840 show no signs of slowing. Do you think this is a good or a bad thing? Of course, people living longer is a good thing when its first brought up, but what happens in the background? Of course in the short term its great, but what about 200-300 years down the line? Overpopulation? Will there be enough resources? Hospitals and elderly homes going to be stuffed with 100 year old people all the time? Disability, medical, and all the other stuff the government has to spend money on will increase if theres tons MORE, OLDER people. Disagree? Discuss. Quote
Bak Posted October 3, 2009 Report Posted October 3, 2009 my hope is that the life expectancy rate increases to the point where it is increasing faster than we age. There may currently be some societal problems with an aging population in that it's difficult to find work they can do so they may risk becoming a drain on society, but with more computers around and people knowledgeable of computers aging, I think we'll find ways to stay productive much later than is currently normal. We may even see societal benefits with a larger workforce. Quote
Chambahs Posted October 3, 2009 Author Report Posted October 3, 2009 Lets say your theory is correct; elderly people being less of a drain and continuing to work. With them doing the jobs that is suitable for them, then the people who were replaced need to find different jobs. Larger workforce will come to bring inflation IMO. More jobs = more competition = more compensation = inflation. Sure, more jobs would be nice, -especially- now, but again, remember im thinking of years in the future. I actually see this more as a negative thing than a positive. Would I want to live to be 100 years old? No, I honestly wouldnt, ill be happy to pull the plug at around 70. Diapers, nurse care, walkers, and not having anything to do all day but sit there and be a burden on the rest of the family. No thanks, doesnt sound like a fun ride to me. After my usefullness has expired, then thats when I need to pull the plug. What is the sense of being 100 if you cant enjoy/do things that you used to? Living to be 100 is just a burden IMO. Quote
Dr Brain Posted October 3, 2009 Report Posted October 3, 2009 Economics isn't a zero sum system. Just because there are more people making money doesn't mean someone else is losing out. Overpopulation also isn't a serious concern. The earth could easily support trillions or quadrillions of humans. Quote
General Shadow Posted October 3, 2009 Report Posted October 3, 2009 Economics isn't a zero sum system. Just because there are more people making money doesn't mean someone else is losing out. Overpopulation also isn't a serious concern. The earth could easily support trillions or quadrillions of humans.I agree with the first part, but the second part I dont. The Earth is large, yes, but you need to think about food...how would we be able to grow enough food for trillions when we can't even feed almost 7 billion? Quote
General Shadow Posted October 3, 2009 Report Posted October 3, 2009 The venus project.Well, yes, and there is the Mars Project, but I think there just isnt enough time to do it before half the world is starving. Quote
Chambahs Posted October 4, 2009 Author Report Posted October 4, 2009 If everyone worked together (haha yea right) it could be completed easily. Quote
JoWie Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 Overpopulation also isn't a serious concern. The earth could easily support trillions or quadrillions of humans.Perhaps they could all "fit" in the available space, but it can not support all the resources we use. And the more "modern" we get, the more resources we use per person. (not just food and water) What would our current situation be in terms of oil shortage, pollution, global warming, what not (assuming they are all real dangers) if our population would be 1% of what it is now? Perhaps some of these problems would almost disappear. Quote
Dr Brain Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 What would our current situation be in terms of oil shortage, pollution, global warming, what not (assuming they are all real dangers) if our population would be 1% of what it is now? Perhaps some of these problems would almost disappear. Those three you mentioned are made-up issues. They have no relation to reality, only to legislation. Quote
»Lynx Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 Overpopulation also isn't a serious concern. The earth could easily support trillions or quadrillions of humans. It could support either amount provided the whole population of the earth starved and died very quickly. Quote
JoWie Posted October 6, 2009 Report Posted October 6, 2009 (edited) So you have one of those star trek matter converter thingies? Things like petroleum will run out some day. Oh, and bak, your signature is popping up a http login screen Edited October 6, 2009 by JoWie Quote
Synister Posted October 6, 2009 Report Posted October 6, 2009 Economics isn't a zero sum system. Just because there are more people making money doesn't mean someone else is losing out. Overpopulation also isn't a serious concern. The earth could easily support trillions or quadrillions of humans.I agree with the first part, but the second part I dont. The Earth is large, yes, but you need to think about food...how would we be able to grow enough food for trillions when we can't even feed almost 7 billion? There's actually alot of livable space with fertile soil for food and stuff.. i mean canada alone has 1 square KM for 1 person.. that's alot of space for 1 person. But then again.. who wants to live in canada right? Quote
Samapico Posted October 6, 2009 Report Posted October 6, 2009 Economics isn't a zero sum system. Just because there are more people making money doesn't mean someone else is losing out. Overpopulation also isn't a serious concern. The earth could easily support trillions or quadrillions of humans.I agree with the first part, but the second part I dont. The Earth is large, yes, but you need to think about food...how would we be able to grow enough food for trillions when we can't even feed almost 7 billion? There's actually alot of livable space with fertile soil for food and stuff.. i mean canada alone has 1 square KM for 1 person.. that's alot of space for 1 person. But then again.. who wants to live in canada right? Problem with that is most of Canada is permafrost and not much can grow there. We are already destroying A LOT of forests to make place to grow stuff. Destroying forests means using resources. If you played any RTS game, you'll know that you always end up emptying out resources We 'could' support much more than the current population, yes, but not without changing our habits. We (industrialized countries) have a major over-consumption problem. I'm not just speaking food here, but resources in general. How many cell phones have you owned? How many things that still worked have you dumped in the trash? The consumer isn't the entire problem though, most products are meant to be trashed, because it costs less to make a new one than to upgrade it. Manufacturing in general has to be completely rethought with sustainable products in mind.I had a stat... forgot the exact figures, but it was something like: for each ton of finished product out of a manufacture, 10 tons of resources were used. The rest is all waste. Quote
Bak Posted October 6, 2009 Report Posted October 6, 2009 http://flowingdata.com/2009/09/24/how-long-people-live-in-america/life-expectancy-map-clean/ Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.