thefourthvine: Two people fucking, rearview: sex is the universal fandom. (Default)
Keep Hoping Machine Running ([personal profile] thefourthvine) wrote2009-10-06 09:21 pm

(no subject)

I'm curious about something, oh friends list o' mine.

Let us say there is a Magical (or Alien, if you prefer, or Divine) Device that humans, acting as a group, can activate. If we do, average life expectancy becomes actual life expectancy. (Do not think about the details. It's a thought experiment!) So, if we do this in the United States, every infant born is guaranteed to live to (roughly - please let's not get hung up on the statistics, here) 78. But in return, you're giving up any years you might have lived beyond 78. And if you're older than 78 now - or if you love someone who is - well, it's goodbye. You are guaranteed to outlive anyone who is older than you are. But anyone who is younger than you are will outlive you, guaranteed. No one will die stupidly at 20 from cancer. (We're ignoring suicide, here, for the moment.) But no one will live to be hale and healthy at 90, either. If you're not in the United States, and you're curious about what your country's cut-off will be, you can find it here (as it happens, magic/alien/divine creations are perfectly happy to use Wikipedia as a source).

Would you do it?

And, okay, now let's say we can't do it just as a country. It has to be worldwide. So everyone's life expectancy becomes 65. Again, infant death becomes a thing of the past. Those people in Swaziland and Angola and Zambia and Lesotho - people whose life expectancy is, on average, at or below 40 years - suddenly get a whacking great additional chunk of life.

On the other hand, you, if you live in a first world country (or, indeed, almost anywhere outside of Africa - there are some Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian countries with expectancies below 65, and it looks like one country in Oceania, but mostly it's Africa), and you already made it this far (and aren't currently suffering any major illness or degenerative disease or anything), could probably have expected to live longer than 65. By a lot, most likely. You are giving up - on average, though no promises are made to you personally, of course - something like 15 years of life. And you're giving up a lot more people, too. As it happens, no one I love is over the age of 78 right now, but I do love people over the age of 65. You probably do, too. The fannish community skews young, but still, we'd lose people in the worldwide adjustment - I don't, as it happens, know any fans over 78, but I do know some over 65.

You get a vote, and let's just say you know in advance that your vote will be pivotal. How are you going to vote?

[Poll #1467592]

[identity profile] neery.livejournal.com 2009-10-07 06:34 am (UTC)(link)
TFV said in a comment that the device would keep adjusting life expectancy with new medical advances, etc, so if we suddenly cured cancer, for example, the average cut-off date would go up for everyone to what it would be in a world without cancer deaths. So I think we would suddenly see a whole new human drive towards charity, and health care for everyone, etc. because the early (non-)death of people in other towns suddenly DOES affect you. I think that might do humanity some good, actually.

Without that, I agree that it might end badly.

[identity profile] sharp-tongue.livejournal.com 2009-10-07 06:41 am (UTC)(link)
What made the book "Handmaiden's Tale" so frightening to me was how plausible it was. Limiting a resource, like fertile women in the aforementioned book, didn't make it more freely shared. It made those in power try more desperately to control it.

The limit on health care and medicines isn't the sole driver toward war and tyranny. It's about power and control.

Limiting the human lifespan doesn't automatically mean charity and the impulse to share resources. With where the world is today, I think it would be the opposite.

[identity profile] neery.livejournal.com 2009-10-07 07:01 am (UTC)(link)
I have to admit I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on that part of it.

I completely agree that it's all about power and control, but there are ways to gain power and control over people while making sure they survive, and therefore their death doesn't take years off your life. I think that would work out better than the current situation, where people in power don't seem to give a damn if anyone in other countries dies, because it doesn't affect them at all. That's not to say it would save all the world's problems, and it would create some terrible new ones.

(For one thing, I think we would suddenly face a fairly terrifying move towards strict birth control, along the lines of what China does, because it's easier to make sure a limited number of people live to a high average age.)