-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do you think that people live on for too long?
- Thread starter nullset2
- Start date
- Status
Grim Patron
Member
IDDQD
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
People were dying at 35???!
BBPunjabi816
Member
Was this revealed at PSX?
dispensergoinup
Gold Member
Is this a dark souls thread?
User 479360
Banned
I think that our society focuses on the wrong things here in America. People are truly judged based on their jobs and their status through that, as well as how much money they have.
If you can't or don't work, you're looked at like a weirdo or useless POS.
Do we live too long? I don't know. I sure wish I could give some of my years to my Mom and have her back. I don't see how it's fair that murderers can live into their 80s or 90s but good people can't.
If you can't or don't work, you're looked at like a weirdo or useless POS.
Do we live too long? I don't know. I sure wish I could give some of my years to my Mom and have her back. I don't see how it's fair that murderers can live into their 80s or 90s but good people can't.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I think we're living long enough that a maximum voting age should be imposed. Know too many elderly in my family who have the mental faculties worse than a child to trust them with voting.
PrinnyBomb
Member
well, it is screwing over the planet.
Well, I think that society should look after disabled people and not just leave them to die, but in some ways, if you're disabled to the point where you can't do anything at all or enjoy anything at all, yet you were kept alive by technology because "it's the right thing to do" wouldn't you even desire to die yourself instead? That could be an exemplary case of "living too long". It sounds strong but it's a logical conclusion.
About the focus on hyperproductivity, yes it's fucked but I think it's a remnant of the fact that as humans we basically never got time off back when we organized in agrarian societies. In those, if you didn't raise your crops you were SOL so you had to work non-stop day in and day out. So that's kind of been emulated by the economical institution telling people that corporations have to make more money so things get better, so they must work for them day in and day out or they will die.
When you think about it, you know, happiness is a social construct; the normal state of the human being is misery, of being alert against the dangers of nature
NoblesseOblige
Banned
To combat this I propose a maximum and minimum age that people are allowed to live. Let's say anyone over the age of 70 and under 20 are set to expire. I predict an absolute successful turnaround within 50 years of implementation.
Lol
Life was absolute shite back then OP, it's definitely not something to aspire to.
And trust me, people had a lot less empathy back then.
Well I'm not trying to romanticize the past or aspire to it. But wouldn't a lot of the malaise of modern life be resolved if people could be less idle? Maybe having shorter lifes would make us nicer towards each other in the long run.
Barkley's Justice
Member
Graphics suck. 3rd parties will DEFINITELY make games for Switch tho.
Or it turns everyone into a "Fuck it. We're gonna die soon anyway." mindset.
Valkyri von Thanatos
Member
Yeah, what is the OP thinking?
NoPiece
Member
Let me challenge two of your assumptions. First, empathy tends to increase with age, not decrease. Many studies validate this. Think about a teenager vs. a 50 year old mom. Which do you think has more empathy?
http://www.brandeis.edu/gutchess/publications/Beadle_2014_adv_access.pdf
And the other assumption is that people used to have very short lifespans. This is very misleading because average age is incredibly distorted by infant mortality. If you exclude people who die before age 5, the average age has been > 60 for at least 1000 years. Also not sure people were better back then than now. They just weren't as exposed by social media as we are.
GoldandBlue
Member
Didn't stop people in the past from being complete shit to each other.
Whoa cool, I appreciate that you're backing up your arguments with numbers, so I can retract my age claim. You could argue that it'd be far more probable to die from some untreatable disease back then, which could shorten your life, but I get your point.
So, let me think of it in another way then, would society be better if we lived forever, or longer? How would that change the human condition?
What a weird, sociopathic look on humanity.
Just because some people are racist, terrible doesn't mean that A) people dying early is going to fix everything B) everyone is so terrible that they all deserve to be dumped in the umbrella.
I personally want to live as long as possible and make sure to have a great life and enrich myself. If you're nihilistic, to the point of thinking people are leeches that should die early, you need help. If you're just being Chicken Little for brownie points, in a community that constantly pats them on the back and joins in, then I fell for your dumb thread.
Just because some people are racist, terrible doesn't mean that A) people dying early is going to fix everything B) everyone is so terrible that they all deserve to be dumped in the umbrella.
I personally want to live as long as possible and make sure to have a great life and enrich myself. If you're nihilistic, to the point of thinking people are leeches that should die early, you need help. If you're just being Chicken Little for brownie points, in a community that constantly pats them on the back and joins in, then I fell for your dumb thread.
ChimpBottle
Member
I don't think so, as I like to believe people are generally good and deserve a nice long prosperous life.
But sometimes it's hard not to kind of agree with you, when you consider that old men raised in racist homophobic environments in the 1950s are the ones making our 2016 laws.
I read a quote once saying "Society progresses one funeral at a time". It's super savage, but has a hint of truth to it.
But sometimes it's hard not to kind of agree with you, when you consider that old men raised in racist homophobic environments in the 1950s are the ones making our 2016 laws.
I read a quote once saying "Society progresses one funeral at a time". It's super savage, but has a hint of truth to it.
This new paradigm of living is really only about 40 years old. It's crazy to make such a suggestion when the western way of life is evolving so rapidly. I do agree with the problems that you're stating, but a solution should consist of rectifying the lack of fulfillment we have with life rather than shortening life itself.
Sure...
On a serious note, no. Even in old age or disabled people can still contribute to society. We live in a capitalist system, where everyone indirectly contributes to the economy. So even the elderly on social security and spending their retirement money are still contributing to society.
Steeped in a Sea of Games
Member
Because it isn't fair. We are an anomaly in an uncaring universe where our deaths are not even a drop in the ocean in a cosmic sense.
Unless that was a stealth advocation for the death penalty. In which case it's because we treat people like humans and try and help them to be better people so they can contribute to society.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Agreed.
Modern medicine makes quality of life better once you have aged. Progress is understanding these biological processes. It gets way complex.
Processes to regulate cell growth and death l, also give rise to cancer and illness.
Nope. Common misconception, but the low life expectancy in pre-modern times is mainly due to the sky-high infant and childhood mortality rate. Someone who survived adolescence was not much less likely to reach their 50s or 60s than we are today. There were plenty of old people in antiquity.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
It's a moot point. Low population growth, low resources.
Child mortality was greater. So, they wouldn't even be given a chance.
It's not remotely a moot point. The OP's post is in large part about what to ethically do with a longer lifespan, but we don't live much longer than humans have in the past, and the average human lifespan of a person who reached adulthood most certainly was not 35. On top of that, the planet isn't overpopulated. It can sustain the existing population and plenty more, we just don't use resources strategically or intelligently. The entire question is incorrectly framed, and that bit of historical ignorance is just the most glaring red flag.
I know nihilistic nonsense is a big deal in OT, but I'm not in my 20s anymore so it's not particularly convincing to me.
capitalCORN
Member
It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks and become one with all the people.
TatteredHat
Member
No, it's too short, if we all lived for 500 years maybe politicians/countries would actually make long term plans for things like climate change instead of trying to find short term solutions for everything.
I think you are undermining "meaningless, routine jobs".
Every job has its purpose or it wouldn't exist. I like to think that even the "lowliest" job is still contributing towards society and the way it functions.
Someone has to design toothbrushes. Someone has to program traffic lights.
Someone has to pick garbage.
Etc
Every job has its purpose or it wouldn't exist. I like to think that even the "lowliest" job is still contributing towards society and the way it functions.
Someone has to design toothbrushes. Someone has to program traffic lights.
Someone has to pick garbage.
Etc
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
I'm just saying that the number of people who even made it to old age (population proportionate) is low due to birth mortality rates, and things like vaccines.
Like a lot of hunter gatherers live long lives, but have a limited population.
I think we are saying the same thing. Longevity isn't always an equal to life expectancy. It's taking the average.
Overpopulation is a myth.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
Average life expectancy, how does that work?
Pro-tip: a life expectancy of 35 doesn't mean everyone was dropping dead at 35. Even way back people lived to old age, you just had a LOT of people dying as infants and you children as well as of disease at any age (and war and famine and infections and... etc.) skewing the average lifespan downwards.
Pro-tip: a life expectancy of 35 doesn't mean everyone was dropping dead at 35. Even way back people lived to old age, you just had a LOT of people dying as infants and you children as well as of disease at any age (and war and famine and infections and... etc.) skewing the average lifespan downwards.
You have to keep in mind that the only reason social or technological or scientific progress are possible in the first place is that some of us don't have to worry about assuring the continued survival and prosperity of our society or species as a whole. Higher-level responsibilities weren't created until a relatively small amount of the population could maintain food production for the entire population. There always has to be someone doing construction, or manufacturing everyday supplements, or harvesting grain to support the general populace.
Sister, but yeah. It's scary.
- Status