Asklemmy

43817 readers

922 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

540

Would you support a mandatory retirement age of 75 for US House, US Senate & US Supreme Court Justices and if not why? (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by robocall@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

182 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] b3an@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Honest question, what do we do that we are now living longer, and have better quality of life and medical advancements? With AI progressing exponentially, this will likely increase average lifespans in developed countries. You might be arguing against your own comments here when you hit 65 and realize you still maintain mental acuity and are thriving.

Personally, I feel like we should be spending our time and focus on fixing a number of other issues. Namely lobbying, special interest groups tied to anti-consumer companies, 'slap on the wrist' fines for billion dollar companies, predatory lending, student loans. I mean the list goes on. These things aren't an age problem, it's a corruption problem.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You might be arguing against your own comments here when you hit 65 and realize you still maintain mental acuity and are thriving.

I’m not running for office nor scotus. But if I were, I’d hope reason would dictate sensible policy, not magical thinking about whatever far-off technological theoretical you might imagine.

[–] b3an@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Then you are not apprised of history.

In 1900, the average life expectancy of a newborn was 32 years. By 2021 this had more than doubled to 71 years.

But life expectancy has increased at all ages. Infants, children, adults, and the elderly are all less likely to die than in the past, and death is being delayed.

This remarkable shift results from advances in medicine, public health, and living standards. Along with it, many predictions of the ‘limit’ of life expectancy have been broken.

I'm not saying we'll be doubling lifespans, but if you looked at the big picture, we've made HUGE strides and advances in a very short period of time. Especially if you consider how long humans have been around. Now we have CRISPR gene editing for example, and very obviously artifical intelligence/machine learning will grow exponentially fast.

This is not "magical thinking" about "far-off technological" theory. This is modern day and recent history, and already we expect global life expectancy to increase by nearly 5 years by 2050 despite geopolitical, metabolic, and environmental threats.

I also didn't say anything about ignoring policy in lieu of science, and pointed out several areas I personally feel could use attention. However that is my own opinion... Just like you on running/not for office.

It is also clear that some aged people are 'sharp' to the end, just as some can be debilitated earlier to disease and age. Sensible policy is also welcome. I just don't think we should lump everyone together using an arbitrary metric.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago

I’m glad you have a hobby tracking the historical progress of life-extending technology, but I find your entire premise to be a straw man.

I have no concern about them not living long enough. So your magical “maybes” and “it could happens” are completely irrelevant.