The problem of living twice or three times as long as we do now, OR the benefits

 Food for Thought for your Thursday

Has anyone here read The Trouble With Lichen, by John Windham?


If you haven't, don't worry, I just want to discuss a proposition presented by the theme of the book.

The story involves finding a substance that prolongs your life by twice it's normal length and in some cases, three times as long.

What the book asks is whether this would be a good thing or a bad thing.

The bad is presented as the more obvious outcome: Imagine the end of long marriages, who is going to be able to live with the same spouse for 120 years instead of 60? Imagine the strain on the health care system, imagine people wanting to WORK for 100 or more years, imagine much larger over-population (supposing that a much longer life means a much longer period of time a woman can conceive and therefore larger families), BUT especially imagine if that substance was only available in limited quantities and which people would have the power to hoard the substance and how the rest of the population would react at being denied the substance.

Now to, for me, the interesting part: The positive effect, as envisioned by the author. It is this: Right now, we have collectively as a species a very cavalier attitude about the environment, because, we at least on a subconscious level can take the attitude that our children and their children can tackle the problem because FOR US it is not going to get THAT bad during our lifetime.

BUT, if our lives were doubled or tripled, and we KNEW that we would end up in our lifetime suffering from the consequences of our inaction, would we change our habits concerning care for the environment?

Hmm.... INTERESTING QUESTION. Would we? If we were going to live to be 150, or 200, or more, and likely to be alive to experience the effects of what we are doing to the Earth, would we become MORE engaged in wanting to protect our environment?

Weigh in folks:

First question: Despite the lure of a longer life, would it make us happier, or would it present us with problems we rather do without? Such as the examples given above?

2nd question: Would a longer life make us more responsible for the welfare of the planet?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more