Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (217880)	2/7/2005 9:17:03 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1572963

The original concern voiced was what happens when most people start living to 120. Not my concern, nor your statement that started the conversation with me. Your statement was about how many people live past 70. My concern was less specific but had more to do with people more people living past ages like 65, 70, 80, 85 and maybe 90, than it did with 120. There is some concern that we may find ways to greatly extend life spans. It isn't fantasy but for now its more science fiction then reality. If we do find ways to make most people live past 120 than there will probably be so many other changes in society as to make projections unreliable. Its true that without change in retirement habits and social security spending , social security would truly become unsustainable, but it is also true that if we change human ageing to that extent that there will be changes in retirement and social security. Its one thing to force people to accept sort of high taxes to have 3 or even 2 workers support a retiree. Its another (and completely unworkable) to have a 1 for 1 ratio or less. Or to get to the point with less verbiage 120 isn't and hasn't been my concern. Tim