←back to thread

Life expectancy rise in rich countries slows down: took 30 years to prove

(www.nature.com)
135 points andsoitis | 1 comments | 15 Oct 24 13:39 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
sneed_chucker ◴[15 Oct 24 14:17 UTC] No.41848871[source]▶
Did we expect it to grow forever?
replies(5): >>41849033 #>>41849084 #>>41849264 #>>41849327 #>>41853853 #
Brajeshwar ◴[15 Oct 24 14:37 UTC] No.41849084[source]▶
If not forever, but if 200-ish becomes a norm, it would be super awesome. Now, it is like, “Awesome, I know this, I know that. I need to learn that.” “Hold on, time to die.”
replies(3): >>41849259 #>>41849332 #>>41850512 #
potato3732842 ◴[15 Oct 24 16:50 UTC] No.41850512[source]▶
The macroeconomic implications of that large a fraction of the population being above working age or such a large fraction of one's life not being working years are not exactly great.
replies(1): >>41852527 #
1. ben_w ◴[15 Oct 24 20:01 UTC] No.41852527[source]▶
Apart from the fact that "working age" doesn't mean the same thing in a world that has anti-aging interventions?

Our economic system is incompatible with the next 200 years irregardless of what specifically gets invented.

At 5%/year, that's a factor (not percentage) of 17292 growth; in energy terms that's not quite boiling the oceans, but it is making the poles the only barely livable zone.

In any sense besides energy, this kind of growth implies automation that makes the meaning of work radically different than today. Human or superhuman AI would be an example of that, but the successful creation of that has other complications that we can currently only guess at with less awareness than the Victorians had of climate change or biodiversity loss.