Well that list is clearly incomplete; “camel toe” is there, but “moose knuckle” is not. Wont somebody think of the children.

I’m with you there; well the concept images at least. The version that made it to production was not as good.

I saw one in person once; way too big for NZ roads; certainly not nice looking.

But Musk went all Nazi and the thing falls apart…so even if they fixed all the issues and made a smaller one; I’d still not be in the market for one.

Ideal is a circle; long is just more expensive. Flat is really good though.

I’m in NZ; we have long and hilly/mountainous, rail is not good here. I wish it were, I love trains.

I had the voodoo 2 card… I played quake, quake 2, quake 3 all on the same card.

That is a good point, but that still only brings the average up a little. Unless they can keep shattered bodies ticking along for another 50 years.

I’m sorry for you situation, living in a country where the healthcare system isn’t a predatory monster waiting to strike when you are at your weakest, it means that I don’t consider it an adversary.

In NZ we have government superannuation, which is a UBI for over 65s. People relying solely on super have a harsh time of it when prices go up. It is better than nothing, it’s still it not enough, at the same time it is a massive share of government expenditure.

Super has to change, currently there are 2.5 earners for each superannuitant, it was 4:1 when the system was first implemented, by sometime in the 2050’s we will be at 2:1; it is a hard sell now to say the workers, “take care of all the old people, even then millionaires”. When the burden is even higher… Unfortunately the voting public, older people vote more, will not accept a change to super.

How though?

What could both extend your life and make its quality lower. The 90% still outweigh the 10%; they are going to quickly see a major advantage to having the advances be more widespread.

In saying the above, people constantly vote against their best interests as it is.

My idea is in no way advocating for disenfranchising the old. They get to vote in my hypothetical world.

They just can’t govern past 85ish, or lead companies etc… They need to pass that torch before they hit the average lifespan age. Most people who attain those offices are living well beyond the average age anyway; they get to live in the world they create and shape it only by voting like the rest of us.

I see someone gave you a downvote, I’m not sure why, yours is the default position.

I agree with you that ageism isn’t good. This is my thought for the day; it isn’t a solution more of an idea. We need to challenge the status quo, the current system isn’t serving the people in its current state.

Do you have an idea on how to change the system, so that younger candidates are an option to vote for?

I don’t think we can use the young for electrical power…

Lets use those numbers.

Assume (generously) that the average lifespan is 90; some breakthrough allows the top 10% to reach 180.

That brings the average up to 99; thus forcing the super rich to cede power for just under 1/2 their lives.

Hard to sell to the 90% that keeping this magical life extension exclusive. The power of averages to ensure that the outliers have a smaller impact.

Edit: to go further, lets assume that the top 1% can go to 5x so 450 years. Ignoring the fact that this couldn’t possibly be known during their lifetimes. That still only brings the average up by a little to 99.9 years. The weight of that 90% is the kicker.

I see where you are going with this. This is a shower thought; but also think, for a second, in the generous terms. What would be accomplished if the goal of the powerful was to extend the average lifespan, how would they do this to ensure the longest possible hold on power. I know the arguments against it. You are saying it is a slippery slope to totalitarianism, which maybe true.

Also; having no limits on power isn’t working out that well either.

I put the gender thing for giggles; but it may actually highlight that men often sacrifice their health to keep earning. Maybe they should take care of themselves more.

You are more than just a unit of economic activity; your family needs you, take care of yourself.

I get what you are saying; the thing is, this test isn’t about fitness. It is about eligibility; once you hit the cutoff, you are no longer eligible to hold power.

My ideal is that the powers that be, would in fact work hard to improve things for everyone to bring that average up. Thus ensuring that they can hold power for longer.

In my magical world where laws apply to all.

Lowering the average age would go against their interests.

I prefer a simple metric, a high % of lifespan works 90 - 95%.

A lot of the leaders live well beyond the average, thus would be subject to their own decisions regardless. It is the rest of us that bring down the average!

How would that help those in power keep power?

I thought of this, but lifespan is better in my opinion.

Healthspan is complex, and generally rises with income and lifespan. Both of which we want to increase. Thus focusing on the single measure of lifespan is easier.

Keeping people alive on machines etc, doesn’t really work on the scale of millions of people needed to change the average.

Country, initially.

Eventually world. Humanity must work together to thrive.

Enlighten me. How is that different?

Part of the idea is to discriminate. Harshly.

You have already lived to the average age, hand on power, give to the future what was given to you. By law. Step back and let the people you (should have) trained take up the mantle of leadership. If you have neglected to train your successor, then watch your works falter and maybe fail because of your hubris.