Thread: Life Expectancy and World Population

Tsen,

Great thread!

Social Security may be an entirely different issue, imho. It's a hot-button-topic by itself.

To my way of thinking, if you have 200 years to "get it right" and you still can't support your own retirement - then you should work until you die, then they should dig you up and animate your corpse to work another ten years to pay for your funeral. 8)

I'm personally not all that big on paying for other people to retire. I took responsibility for my own life, and I can't ever see an instance where I'd make a claim against it. If I were in charge for the day, my SS Reform would be simple:

"Anyone that isn't ready to retire day after tomorrow - you're screwed. We'll pay out the rest until it's broke, and then you're all screwed too. If you're lucky, you've been drawing on it for the last 20 years, and you'll be dead tomorrow and congrats! You made out. The rest of you should be taking responsibility for your own lives."

If you can't build a nest-egg in 150 years to last for 50 years - you deserve what you get. I don't personally find any value in keeping you around...

I agree totally about retirement. If you can't manage to save up enough money in all 100+ years of work, you don't really deserve to relax your last 50 or so years, do you?

Unfortunately, 'democracy' will mandate in some way or another that we'll all have work harder to pay for these free-riders to live comfortably.

Another question, though: How many years would you be willing to live, and how many of those years would you be willing to work to pay for those years? Will people simply not want to live after a certain length of time, and will this help keep a balance of births and deaths? Or will everybody insist on living for 1000+ years?

This is a great topic.
I have traced this, what I call an issue. But what I really believe is a problem.
When disscussed you can almost attach over population to almost all of the worlds problems today or in the future.

What Kimmpossible wrote;
"There's another possible outcome: The holders of the technologies are incentivised to make it scarce. Then those that can afford it live forever, and those that can't . . ."

This is a very good point. However the upper income housholds have less children than do the more wealthy families. Also the more educated sector of our society, usually the wealthy as well, also have lower birth rates. This counter acting the disadvantage of a scarcity or price issue.
Furthermore in our democracy we aid the poor, eventual giving them an ettept at equality.

And regardless how the population rate grows the earths resources & ecosystem can only sustain any population for so long.

Kim is in the habit of making awesome points. But I'm afraid to tell you guys that this is not one of them.

I am not afraid to tell Kim that, however. She may smite me, but, little does she know, I've already been smitten.

Originally posted by kimpossible
There's another possible outcome: The holders of the technologies are incentivised to make it scarce. Then those that can afford it live forever, and those that can't...

Unthinking sensationalism.

First, you appear to assume that there will only be singular powerful technologies that will lengthen life expectancy, like magic pills, not technologies that are spread out across multiple product and service sectors. Second, you appear to assume that such technologies will be monopolized and, furthermore, in a way completely unregulated by governments. Third, you appear to assume that these technologies will just be found in a narrow great leap, and not through progressive advancements of a wide variety of technologies, which could spawn an even larger variety of solutions. Fourth, you appear to assume that such technologies will not follow natural product life cycles, where they are first unpopular and expensive, then popular and cheaper, and then saturated and really cheap. Fifth, you appear to assume that such technologies will only be invented by a few people.

Only with these assumptions can you make it possible that a few powerful individuals would restrict the supply of their technologies, nevermind making it plausible that there would be an incentive to do so.

The holders of technologies never have an incentive to "make things scarce." Things are already scarce! There is never an infinite supply of anything. The holders will have the same incentive they've always had - to maximize profits. And they do that by producing when the cost of the final good produced equals its contribution to revenue. All businesses inevitably must restrict their supply in this fashion.

Now, that phenomenon tends to happen very soon for monopolies, which is why we regulate them in some way or another (by legislating natural monopolies, restricting time to hold a patent, etc.).

The concept of "holders of technologies" already seems very vague. Do you mean universities, businesses, governments, nonprofit organizations? The only ways that these things exist is because of the diverse interests of a large amount of stakeholders.

And it is the interaction of a large amount stakeholders that will create technologies for radical life extension, because that is exactly how advances in technology have always been made.

Even Edison, our paradigm of a lone inventor, had to fund his inventions by selling them. Oh yeah, and he wasn't actually alone!

I guess you've never heard of agriculture, huh? Or how we (our government) pay our farmers and ranchers tens of billions of dollars to flush/burn product.

And when faced with a team of SEALs on this hand, and making infinite margin on the other hand, the decision is pretty easy.

Agriculture was my middle name in a former life. It's criminal how we subsidize sugar in particular. Have you ever heard of the European Union? They do it too.

Originally posted by kimpossible
And when faced with a team of SEALs on this hand, and making infinite margin on the other hand, the decision is pretty easy.

WDYMBT? There are no SFs forcing people to take subsidies.

-----

Oh, and Tsen, social security is projected to add to a surplus all the way until 2017. That means until that time there will be more money being paid in each year than money being paid out. The surplus is expected to run out in about 2043. So if nothing is done by that time, then benefits will be cut for those claiming social secuity in that year. (*Interesting note, the social security surplus is factored into our budget deficit and therefore masks the "true" deficit).

There is some truth to the matter that there's no immediate crisis, but it most certainly is looming. In the interest of making it easier for people to plan their futures, we should do something soon.

The problem is not a lack of a solution. There are many solutions. The real problem is a lack of legislation, ostensibly because our legislators don't think it's a problem yet. And in a way it's not.

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Agriculture was my middle name in a former life. It's criminal how we subsidize sugar in particular. Have you ever heard of the European Union? They do it too.



WDYMBT? There are no SFs forcing people to take subsidies.

The manipulation of the human life span has been under the control of an elite group of neo-cons for hundreds of years, with accomplices within the distribution infrastructure. In fact the human ‘average’ life span is a promised 120 years, but the unfortunate control of the conglomerations of higher technologies, as stunted the nature abilities of the human body. The processing of our modern life-style has forced mankind into a pressure-cooker environment with considerable health repercussions as a result.

Heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, diabetes’s, and many other casual condition profligate by design to further secure their hold on the populous of the world. And to increase the overwhelming gain of those whom trade human life for profit, and it will continue, because the average citizen will sit in the simmering pot until it boils, but then its to late.

The Rev.

Which is my point, with extended life expectancy, we're going to run out of Social Security benefits long before I have a chance to claim some. In 2043 I'll be 55, and barring some sort of dramatic accident, still working.


What I'd advocate is a complete and total tax reform. Not that it'd happen...the problem with our government is it's far too slow and hesitant for change. Still, if taxes were simplified to a simple 10% of our income, with no way to just dodge around it, we'd bring in more money from taxes and people wouldn't resent them nearly as much.
The next step would be to redo the entire grant system. Open states directly, or with little middle-man influence, to tax funds, so they don't have to pull the whole hoop-jumping routine everytime they need money. Of course, there'd have to be regulation to make sure there wasn't laundering, but that's a problem with our current system anyways...
Anyway, with a more stream-lined tax and grant system we could save considerably on government spending, and effectively free up money for a new Social Security system.

But I doubt it'll happen, and if it did, the plan would require some serious tweaking--I'm no economics major, and I'm sure there's issues. The base of the matter is, government is wasting a good amount of money that could save Social Security.

And I can't say it's a concern for legislators--they'll all make retirement before Social Security dies.

Awaken posted while I was still typing, so now I'll address his statement:

I'd like to see why everybody's so up about "The government's controlling lifespans."

Seriously, I met somebody who was sure that vapor trails from jets in the sky were poisonous and used to keep population under control.
Now, I could see why somebody would like to with hold life-extending medication and methods, but I highly doubt it would be to keep a firm hold on world population. Especially since the population will continue to boom even if lifespans drop to 40. It might slow it, but it definitely won't stop it. Even if the average lifespan was 16, people would compensate and the world population would still go up.
And life span is slowly increasing even if some miracle technology is kept from the public. Like Ex mentioned, it likely won't be a single invention that increases our lifespan, but many in multiple locations.

Also, despite the "pressure-cooker" environment, our lifespans STILL go up. Heart attacks may be going up, but I'd be more willing to attribute that to a lazy lifestyle and unhealthy eating. (Atkins, for example--it will help you lose weight, but it'll kill you just because the diet is ANYTHING but balanced.)

I got an idea, Impose The Logan’s Run Law!

Tsen, you might find this site interesting:

http://www.taxreformpanel.gov

I just took a look at their latest meeting, where they talked about consolidating various family allowances into one family credit. Notice you can download their powerpoint slides.

I took an individual income tax class over the summer. It was an upper level [sic] accounting course, where we had to manually write on forms instead of using a computer program. Holy shit. The headache to productivity ratio is through the roof. If they had made even that one change to a family tax credit, my class would've been discernably simpler. And, hopefully, much easier for an actual head of household taxpayer.

Oh, and don't plan on collecting social security anyways, the same way a tightrope walker doesn't plan on falling on the net.

The Logan's Run Law wouldn't solve anything---
Like I said, you can limit human lifespan to 100, 80, 50, 30, or even 16, and the population will still go up. Evolution, though we have slowed it, will take effect as you limit it more: Those who hit puberty faster are more likely to pass on their genes, so humans will begin to hit puberty sooner as a whole, and thus be able to have kids sooner. And that's only if you limit it to 16 or less...If you limit lifespans to 30, the population will boom with barely any decrease from what it's doing now. Many, if not most, parents have kids before they're 30. If their life was limited to 30, they'd definitely choose to have kids sooner or not have kids at all, and it's altogether VERY possible to have 6 kids by the time you're 30.

On August 14, at 9 PM, Israel's Channel Ten television screened a documentary film which exposes the ugliest secret of Israel's Labor party founders: the deliberate mass radiation poisoning of nearly all Sephardi youths of a generation.

"The Ringworm Children" (translated in Hebrew as "100,000 Rays"), directed by David Belhassen and Asher Hemias, recently won the prize for "best documentary" at the Haifa International film festival, and in the past year has made the rounds of Jewish and Israeli film festivals around the world. But it had yet to come to Israeli television screens. The subject is the mass irradiation of hundreds of thousands of young Israeli immigrants from Middle Eastern countries -- Sephardim, as they are called today. The story goes like this:

In 1951, the director general of the Israeli Health Ministry, Dr. Chaim Sheba, flew to America and returned with seven x-ray machines, supplied to him by the American army.

They were to be used in a mass atomic experiment with an entire generation of Sephardi youths to be used as guinea pigs. Every Sephardi child was to be given 35,000 times the maximum dose of x-rays through his head. For doing so, the American government paid the Israeli government 300 million Israeli liras a year. The entire Health budget was 60 million liras. The money paid by the Americans is equivalent to billions of dollars today.

To fool the parents of the victims, the children were taken away on "school trips" and their parents were later told the x-rays were a treatment for the scourge of scalpal ringworm. 6,000 of the children died shortly after their doses were given, while many of the rest developed cancers that killed thousands over time and are still killing them now. While living, the victims suffered from disorders such as epilepsy, amnesia, Alzheimer's disease, chronic headaches and psychosis.

That is the subject of the documentary in cold terms. It is another matter to see the victims on the screen.

To watch the Moroccan lady describe what getting 35,000 times the dose of allowable x-rays in her head feels like. "I screamed make the headache go away. Make the headache go away. Make the headache go away. But it never went away."

To watch the bearded man walk hunched down the street. "I'm in my fifties and everyone thinks I'm in my seventies. I have to stoop when I walk so I won't fall over. They took my youth away with those x-rays."

To watch the old lady who administered the doses to thousands of children: "They brought them in lines. First their heads were shaved and smeared in burning gel. Then a ball was put between their legs and the children were ordered not to drop it, so they wouldn't move. The children weren't protected over the rest of their bodies. There were no lead vests for them. I was told I was doing good by helping to remove ringworm. If I knew what dangers the children were facing, I would never have cooperated. Never!"

Because the whole body was exposed to the rays, the genetic makeup of the children was often altered, affecting the next generation. We watch the woman with the distorted face explain, "All three of my children have the same cancers my family suffered. Are you going to tell me that's a coincidence?"

The majority of the victims were Moroccan because they were the most numerous of the Sephardi immigrants. The generation that was poisoned became the country's perpetual poor and criminal class. It didn't make sense. The Moroccans who fled to France became prosperous and highly educated. The common explanation was that France got the rich, thus smart ones. The real explanation is that every French Moroccan child didn't have his brain cells fried with gamma rays.

The film made it perfectly plain that this operation was no accident. The dangers of x-rays had been known for over forty years. We read the official guidelines for x-ray treatment in 1952. The maximum dose to be given a child in Israel was .5 rad. There was no mistake made. The children were deliberately poisoned.

David Deri makes the point that only Sephardi children received the x-rays: "I was in class and the men came to take us on a tour. They asked our names. The Ashkenazi children were told to return to their seats. The dark children were put on the bus."

The film presents a historian who first gives a potted history of the eugenics movement. In a later sound bite, he declares that the ringworm operation was a eugenics program aimed at weeding out the perceived weak strains of society. The Moroccan lady is back on the screen. "It was a Holocaust, a Sephardi Holocaust. And what I want to know is why no one stood up to stop it."

David Deri, on film and then as a panel member, relates the frustration he encountered when trying to find his childhood medical records. "All I wanted to know was what they did to me. I wanted to know who authorized it. I wanted to trace the chain of command. But the Health Ministry told me my records were missing." Boaz Lev, the Health Ministry's spokesman chimes in: "Almost all the records were burned in a fire."

We are told that a US law in the late '40s put a stop to the human radiation experiments conducted on prisoners, the mentally feeble and the like. The American atomic program needed a new source of human lab rats and the Israeli government supplied it. Here was the government cabinet at the time of the ringworm atrocities:

Prime Minister - David Ben Gurion; Finance Minister - Eliezer Kaplan; Settlement Minister - Levi Eshkol; Foreign Minister - Moshe Sharrett; Health Minister - Yosef Burg;
Labor Minister - Golda Meir; Police Minister - Amos Ben Gurion.

The highest ranking non-cabinet post belonged to the Director General of the Defence Ministry, Shimon Peres.

That a program involving the equivalent of billions of dollars of American government funds should be unknown to the Prime Minister of cash-strapped Israel is ridiculous. Ben Gurion had to have been in on the horrors and undoubtedly chose his son to be Police Minister in case anyone interfered with them.

Finance Minister Eliezer Kaplan was rewarded for eternity with a hospital named after him near Rehovot. But he's not alone in this honor. Chaim Sheba, who ran Ringworm Incorporated, had a whole medical complex named after him. Needless to say, if there is an ounce of decency in the local medical profession, those hospital names will have to change.

After the film ended, there was a panel discussion which included a Moroccan singer, David Edri, head of the Compensation Committee for Ringworm X-Ray Victims, and Boaz Lev, a spokesman for the Ministry Of Health.

TV host Dan Margalit tried to put a better face on what he'd witnessed. He explained meekly that "the state was poor. It was a matter of day to day survival." Then he stopped. He knew there was no excusing the atrocities which the Sephardi children endured.

But it was the Moroccan singer who summed up the experience best. "It's going to hurt, but the truth has to be told. If not, the wounds will never heal."

There is one person alive who knows the truth: Shimon Peres. The only way to get to the truth and start the healing is to investigate him for his role in the mass poisoning of over 100,000 Sephardi children and youth.

But here is why that won't happen. The film was aired at the same time as the highest-rated TV show of the year, the finale of Israel's talent-hunt show: "A Star Is Born." The next day, the newly-born star's photo took up half the front pages. There was not a word about "The Ringworm Children" in any paper, nor on the Internet. Until now.

Ah, I've also wondered about this whole issue myself, and I have a few thougts/ theroies.

Biologically speaking, the human species is currently an R-selected species, not a K-Selected species, here's what the two terms mean:

R-selected: population is only limited by the rate or reproduction. This is true in species that experience sudden, exponential populations booms, eg. flies or other insects. There is a complete abundance of resources available to the population, and therefore the rate of reproduction is the only limiting factor.

K-selected: A K-selected population is a population that is limited by the number of resources available. These populations tend to be relativley stable and fluctuate more or less predictably. Mammals and other large animals are typically K-selected, due to the more limited resources.

The human species, until the start of last century were a typical K-selected species, with population fluctuating due to climate etc and diseases. We were able to break away from K-selection with the emergence of technologies, particularly medicinal science. Suddenly we found ourselves with vast new technologies to use, new drugs, improved farming methods, refridgeration - all of which enabled our species to climb exponentially, turning us into a J-selected species.

Normally you would think that such an exponential growth would be bound to level out, but with the population growth comes more technologies that enable us to extract more from the resources around us, maintaining the population growth. So while it is of course inevitable that we will eventually reach a limit, the chances are that new technologies etc will keep fueling more growth for a long while yet. As soon as we again become limited by our resources, we will start looking for new ways to increase our resources. I think that Genetically Modified foods is an example of one such technology that may enable us to do this.

Also (these are my thoughts so feel free to argue them) I have wondered about the effect of war on our population. As resources become more limited, it is natural for countries to become a little edgy with each other and could possibly result in war. The consequence of war is that it puts a dent in the population, yet many new technologies are developed, enabling the population to continue past waht was previously the limit.

The Lemming Theory:

Ok, here's a little thought I had a while ago about all this. Everyone has heard about lemmings and their suicidal nature right? Well this is usually attributed to the Norwegian Brown Lemming, and what happens is this: The Norwegian Brown lemming is a small rodent that experiences major population booms about two to three times a decade, depending on the availability of resources and good breeding seasons. As the population booms, it becomes too large for the limited number of resources on hand, and the lemming becomes stressed. As a result of this stress, lemmings are worked into a frenzy and set out in many directions in search for more resources. Some lemmings attempt to cross rivers or swim in the sea, with some drowning in the process. The result is that after a while many lemmings might have died in the frenzy, yet the few that managed to get across the river found themselves in a new habitat with ample resources. Back on the original side of the river, the population is now reduced to a level suitable for the surrounding resources.

Ok, now I won't go so far to say that humans will work into a frenzy and try to swim across rivers, but I was wondering whether things like war are much like the lemming's frenzy - people are killed, yet new resources and technologies are discovered. Also, as a population gets more advanced and skilled, it can afford to send people to colonise other places.

So that's my thoughts on an increasing human population and limited resources. We might end up as a K-selected species for a while later on in the century, but through developing new technologies and harnessing resources more efficiently, we will become R-selected again, and continue exponential growth.

Anyways, those are jsut a few thoughts, but I don't even attempt to claim that they are concrete, so feel free to tell me what you think. I'm not sure what effect life-increasing drugs would have on the population, keeping in mind that women reach menopause and I doubt whether a 150 year old man would still be up for the job, but who knows. As to social security I have no idea at all. Isn't that just like a massive pyramid scheme that relies on a constant flow of people contributing at the bottom? Eh who knows.

Awaken, thanks for the story. I'm glad you gave something more than the average conspiracy theorist.

Still, I don't think the American government is doing anything like that to us. It was a horrible crime, and those responsible should have been subjected to the same treatment they imposed on others. Today, though, I doubt such things are being done. Society is becoming more complex and knowledgable, and it's more than a little difficult (In the US anyways) to hide something of that nature.

Also, Roller, I'd expect that with the advent of life-extending drugs, people would be able to work and reproduce longer...otherwise, nobody would really care about them. If you could live to 200, but you'd grow older all the same, you wouldn't be able to support yourself with the income you'd need to live. Life-extending treatments would have to not only extend your lifespan, but also extend your youthfulness.

Originally posted by Roller
Normally you would think that such an exponential growth would be bound to level out, but with the population growth comes more technologies that enable us to extract more from the resources around us, maintaining the population growth. So while it is of course inevitable that we will eventually reach a limit...

Is it?

When? At what level? How is it inevitable? How is it \"of course\" inevitable?

the chances are that new technologies etc will keep fueling more growth for a long while yet. As soon as we again become limited by our resources, we will start looking for new ways to increase our resources. I think that Genetically Modified foods is an example of one such technology that may enable us to do this.[/b]

Aren't genetically modified foods already an example of a technology that allows us to extract more from our resources?

Yeah that's what I was thinking Tsen... there's no use in simply increasing the age at which we can live if our productive ages aren't also extended, otherwise it's pretty pointless.

When? At what level? How is it inevitable? How is it \"of course\" inevitable?

Yes, of course. While technologies allow us to extract more resources from our environments, there is indeed a limit to the earth's resources. When this limit is reached our population goes from R-selected to K-selected and population growth levels itself out until more resources are found or methods of using resources become more efficient.

Aren't genetically modified foods already an example of a technology that allows us to extract more from our resources?

Well yes, but I would argue that genetic modification has nowhere nearly been used to its potential.[/quote]

Originally posted by Roller
While technologies allow us to extract more resources from our environments, there is indeed a limit to the earth's resources.

If we keep extracting more from those resources, then we do not need to use as much of them for a given task.

If resource efficiency continues to grow, the effective amount of usable resources continues to grow as well.

At any point in time in the future there will never be an infinite amount of anything. But over time will our trend of increasing resource efficiency ever end?

Well yes, but I would argue that genetic modification has nowhere nearly been used to its potential.[/b]

Do you mean it's not being used to its economic or scientific potential?

Our methods of manipulating DNA may not be refined enough to offer a marketable price/performance ratio for what you're looking for. What scientific potential that isn't being used likely remains that way because it is not economical yet.

If you mean that it isn't being used to its economic potential, however, that would be an interesting thought! Because then corporations are losing potential profit by not delivering to the market, which means that some will lag while others score, so we should take a second look at the biotech companies in our portfolios.

Yeah I'm with you on the rising efficiency of resources etc, it does seem that it is rising without stop... I don't know if it will ever end, but I would haphazard a guess to say at different points in time it might level off or plateu for a short period of time. Along with the development in resource technologies, there's also developments in medical technologies to be taken into account, although these technologies are pretty worthless unless they are available to empoverised people.

As for Genetic Modification, I would argue that it isn't being used to its economic or scientific potential. The market on GM foods is still not a free one; there are many sanctions, laws, inhibitions etc placed on growers of GM, and while they are in place we can't ever hope to realise the potential of the science. Even if they were removed, there is a lot of public fears and stigma placed on GM in general, so it might take a very long time before the potential of the technology is fully realised. Kinda like the early days of the internet; when it was only a few computer geeks fiddling with their computers nobody really cared, but as soon as companies could make some healthy profits it really kicked off. Most of the biotech companies I have seen on the sharemarket have been rather unstable, so I personally would have a long think before dedicating to them a fair portion of my (humble) portfolio pie.

First I would like to thank Kimpossible and her friends for supporting my wife and me. We are so glade you choose to do this for us. Really not to make light of it because this is an excellent topic and deserves a real solution. Again not to make light of it but the world has and always will have serious problems until the end. That’s not to say we should give up and throw in the towel. I have children and a grandson that I love more then the entire world’s problems. I don’t want them to struggle threw life just to find it even harder when its time to retire. I hope you guys do come up with a solution because apparently the people in power today have not achieved one. Having lived threw the 50s and 60s I can honestly say that things were not that bad back then. I’m sure there are plenty that hate my views but as I see it this county was founded on Christianity and One Nation Under God. I see that being attacked and the problems getting worse. So I can only think at this time of the words from a group called Steppen Wolf from the 60s. If you interpret in spiritual terms you will see what I mean.

A poem from a song by the Group Stepenwolf 196..
Quote:
I see your wings man
But can you fly
All I see when I look down is something jumping on the ground
A chicken, scratching in the barnyard
Tell me could that be you
In that case, lay your self another egg and save yourself from the barbeque

Unfortunately There are written prophecies which must be fulfilled, and to make a ‘really long’ story short, there are a remnant of people which shall be the inheritors of the promise, and it ain’t Kansas, the Earth way it is meant to be, without thorns or thistles, or killing. But in the ‘mean’ time man has a strangle hold on the peoples of the world, selling their souls as commodities, to the fulfillment of their lust.

The Rev.

Thousands of years ago man lived for hundreds of years.
There is nothing new under the sun.

Originally posted by dreamtamer007
Thousands of years ago man lived for hundreds of years.
There is nothing new under the sun.

Sounds like a forum we just had?

Where is the record of "hundreds of years"? And please don't quote the bible - 'cause I'll insist that that quote was allegorical. It works for you, it will work for me.

>> WDYMBT

That they would be provided a choice of accepting subsidy or have it taken from them at point of arms.