If humans lived to an average of 200 years, would we live our lives differently?

submitted by JerkChicken from self.AskSaidIt

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]hfxB0oyA 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We're edging in on 100 and I wonder if people appreciate the extra time and associated good health more than a Victorian would with their average lifespan of roughly 45.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Depends.

Would we age slower than now or would we age normally until 60 and then from then on until 200 we would look and live like an old person?

[–]JerkChicken[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It would be unfortunate if we simply existed longer as an elderly person, it sounds like a nightmare. Better to age slower to experience life for longer.

One would wonder if humans would then have an extended adolescence into the 20's or 30's or even longer, or if we would take less risks in life knowing how many years could be lost should we make a mistake.

[–]Alan_Crowe 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are many variations. I think that the interesting one says 200 = 70 + 130 and says that the 130 extra years get slotted in between thirty years old and forty years old. So you reach 30 and ageing slows down fourteen fold. We might even change how we count birthdays: 27, 28, 29, 30, 30a, 30b, ,,, 30L, 30m, 31, 31a, 31b, ... 40, 41, 42

Think about what we mean by meritocracy. We say that we pick the best man for the job, but that is obviously bogus, we don't know how well they do the job until after they have done it. We actually guess who will be the best man for the job, pick them, and hope that we were right.

The two rival ways of guessing are (academics and examinations = credentials) or (apprentice ship and working your way up)

Currently we have big organisations with many layers. It would take too long to have people work their way up the organisation. If we used apprenticeship as the basis of meritocracy it would really be a gerontocracy. So we go with faster acting and less accurate systems of credentials. Which work less well over time and people learn to game the system.

But if people lived to be 200, apprenticeship becomes more viable. Yes, you are 120 by the time you become chairman of the board, but you still have 80 good years left in you to lead the organisation.

[–]grunwode 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In some ways. Think of all the people who die from misadventure or lifestyle. They'd still be dead at the same ages. The same minority that becomes superannuated would probably have the same habits.

While it's true that having more experiences leads to more wisdom, the actual distribution probably doesn't work out much differently. Curiously though, modern medicine saving people from their bad choices doesn't seem to have paid dividends in the form of a more sober society.

It would definitely alter how the economy operates, as the base of the population pyramid wouldn't be any wider.

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Who wants to be old for 150 years?