Most active commenters
  • ACCount37(3)

←back to thread

New research reveals longevity gains slowing, life expectancy of 100 unlikely

(lafollette.wisc.edu)
215 points XzetaU8 | 12 comments | 30 Aug 25 16:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.406s | source | bottom
Show context
dsign ◴[31 Aug 25 04:24 UTC] No.45080365[source]▶
I was walking on the street the other day. It was fine summer, and I saw so many elderly walking outside. All of them were using one type of aid or another; some even had a social worker at their side. As I saw them, I was thinking that my 63% marginal tax was paying for it, while I part with 25% of my income after taxes to pay my mom’s pension. That monetary cost is nothing, I would gladly pay it for the rest of my life if it could give my mom a good life for that long. Her old age is my single biggest source of stress.

In the political sphere, some countries are tearing themselves apart on the question of immigration and identity. But immigration is the only thing that can replenish their workforce.

So, we are paying an extremely high cost for letting God go on with His Slow Tormentous Cooking of Souls before Consumption, and things are only going to get worse, given the demographic expectations. Wouldn’t it make sense to put a big chunk of budget into creating life-extension tech?

replies(11): >>45080620 #>>45080726 #>>45080845 #>>45080929 #>>45081090 #>>45081233 #>>45081964 #>>45082340 #>>45082530 #>>45084648 #>>45085107 #
1. kruffalon ◴[31 Aug 25 06:01 UTC] No.45080726[source]▶
> But immigration is the only thing that can replenish their workforce.

Not in a sustainable way.

Immigration is only viable as long as the countries of origin are so bad to live in so it's "better" to migrate. This is not really a world we want, is it?

replies(1): >>45082011 #
2. DrBazza ◴[31 Aug 25 10:17 UTC] No.45082011[source]▶
Don't forget that the recipient countries of immigrants are brain-draining the countries they're leaving. Arguably those motivated individuals are precisely those that should stay in their country and make it less 'bad'.
replies(2): >>45082093 #>>45082196 #
3. kruffalon ◴[31 Aug 25 10:34 UTC] No.45082093[source]▶
Yes!

But more importantly wealthy countries shouldn't depend on there being poor countries where women still have "too" many children but rather we should fix our own problems so we want and can have sufficient young people of our own (not said in a nazi way).

And we should also redistribute wealth so there aren't any poor countries to exploit for natural resources, crops and people.

replies(1): >>45084690 #
4. ACCount37 ◴[31 Aug 25 10:55 UTC] No.45082196[source]▶
That's for them to decide, not you.

I don't have enough cruelty in me to demand that someone should stay in Sudan and try to "fix" what's happening there.

replies(3): >>45083259 #>>45083365 #>>45084601 #
5. Levitz ◴[31 Aug 25 14:10 UTC] No.45083259{3}[source]▶
Do you have enough cruelty to promote immigration, grabbing the best people a country has to offer, leaving it in the gutter?
replies(2): >>45083366 #>>45087734 #
6. silver_silver ◴[31 Aug 25 14:24 UTC] No.45083365{3}[source]▶
The middle path is limiting (not ending) migration while actually trying to help these counties (in particular victims of one’s past colonial ambitions) through aid, investment, and free/subsidised education for their youth.

I say this as a someone who immigrated from a dangerous country to the first world.

The only way the current plan even approaches sustainability is if the brain drain on source nations is sufficient to keep them stuck and suffering. That should make it very clear that the humanitarian impact is a side effect and not the goal.

7. ACCount37 ◴[31 Aug 25 14:24 UTC] No.45083366{4}[source]▶
That would be an upgrade, really.

Selecting "the best people" is the often-overlooked step. A lot of countries just want to import cheap labor and get easy economic growth today, damned be the consequences.

8. nradov ◴[31 Aug 25 16:44 UTC] No.45084601{3}[source]▶
Would you have said the same about the USA's founding fathers in 1776 who stayed to fix what was happening there?
replies(2): >>45084823 #>>45087726 #
9. nradov ◴[31 Aug 25 16:52 UTC] No.45084690{3}[source]▶
Redistributing wealth will not make poor countries rich. Most poor countries are poor because of bad governance, corruption, political problems (including armed conflicts), culture, and geography. I support some limited forms of foreign aid but when we simply redistribute wealth it mostly gets stolen or wasted without achieving any sustainable improvements.
10. ACCount37 ◴[31 Aug 25 17:06 UTC] No.45084823{4}[source]▶
Yes. That was very much their own decision to make.
11. ◴[31 Aug 25 22:39 UTC] No.45087726{4}[source]▶
12. ◴[31 Aug 25 22:40 UTC] No.45087734{4}[source]▶