←back to thread

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

(lafollette.wisc.edu)
215 points XzetaU8 | 4 comments | 30 Aug 25 16:15 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
joelthelion ◴[31 Aug 25 07:43 UTC] No.45081233[source]▶
> 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?

It's controversial, but I think it would be tremendously beneficial to our society if we accepted that death is (currently) inevitable and that past some point, assisted suicide is a lot better than artificially prolonging suffering at great cost for as long as possible.

replies(4): >>45081602 #>>45081657 #>>45082844 #>>45084434 #
A_D_E_P_T ◴[31 Aug 25 09:04 UTC] No.45081657[source]▶
> assisted suicide is a lot better than artificially prolonging suffering at great cost for as long as possible.

I beseech you to contemplate how badly this might be abused, and how monstrous the consequences could be. Even now MAID in Canada and other forms of assisted suicide in Europe have arguably gone way too far.

replies(2): >>45081710 #>>45083174 #
okr ◴[31 Aug 25 09:12 UTC] No.45081710[source]▶
It is my life. Not yours. What you are afraid of is openly murdering people.
replies(1): >>45081754 #
A_D_E_P_T ◴[31 Aug 25 09:20 UTC] No.45081754[source]▶
There are lots of ways for you to end your life. You do not have to involve government or society. You do not require sanction or assistance.

The only people who might require assistance and sanction are those who are so catastrophically ill that they cannot function independently at all. But MAID has already killed people who were able-bodied! (And some for stupid or trivial reasons: https://care.org.uk/news/2024/10/poor-lonely-and-homeless-op... )

replies(4): >>45081835 #>>45081865 #>>45082329 #>>45082544 #
VonTum ◴[31 Aug 25 12:06 UTC] No.45082544[source]▶
> However, lobbying efforts have steadily pushed for broader access and eligibility...British legislators have to consider how easily assisted dying can be expanded, how easily abuses can go undetected.

Wait, how exactly does one "abuse" MAID?

People being so deep in poverty and addiction that they opt for MAID as an option isn't a symptom that it's "too easy" to access it, but rather that _society_ is failing them. And when those people finally say "Well fuck this shit I'm out", we reply "That's not allowed". Disregarding that companies won't hire them, rent & housing are ridiculous, they''re not allowed to put their tents anywhere and when they get kicked out their tents & belongings are trashed instead of being given back.

replies(2): >>45082885 #>>45084473 #
1. wizzwizz4 ◴[31 Aug 25 13:10 UTC] No.45082885[source]▶
The argument is that society should not put resources into things like assisted dying programmes: they should put resources into making life worth living for people who would otherwise take the assisted dying option.
replies(1): >>45082910 #
2. macintux ◴[31 Aug 25 13:14 UTC] No.45082910[source]▶
Only one of those options seems financially practical, unfortunately.
replies(2): >>45083086 #>>45083173 #
3. westmeal ◴[31 Aug 25 13:40 UTC] No.45083086[source]▶
It's funny to say this when there in fact is wealth but is mostly tied up in assets owned by rich douchebags and trust fund kids. Financially practical is just a nonsense word considering money isn't even tied to anything anymore either.
4. wizzwizz4 ◴[31 Aug 25 13:56 UTC] No.45083173[source]▶
If this is true (and I don't think it is), then we need a fundamental, radical overthrowing of the social order, and a lot of work put into constructing a new one. Any system where putting people to death is more "practical" than giving them fulfilling lives must be destroyed, and replaced. (It may be more effective to destroy and replace the system gradually – "reform" – since revolutions tend to have too many moving parts for Blanquists to keep track of, the situation has to be pretty bad before a popular revolution becomes likely, and the world's so interconnected now that foreign powers will take advantage of the malleability of a society undergoing revolution, likely to the detriment of the locals.)