But...
> While some theorize that the approach could be used to create a pill
>that would let us all live 40 percent longer — boosting average age from 80
>to 110 — Phillips said that is not his intention. “There are too many social
>implications,” he said. “Already there are problems with old-age pensions,
>for example.”
[small snip]
> “Life span was extended though
>postponement of the onset of senescence.”
> In other words, he said, we could live our final days not in a
>geriatric ward, but full of youthful energy.
Same old same old tragic misunderstanding. It's truly amazing how people
*just can't get their heads around this crucial point*. Even assuming that
the nexus between jobs and income is bound to remain unchanged - an
absurdity, given increased cybernation and eventually virtually cost-free
nano minting of most consumables - commentators somehow seem stuck with the
notion that if we *now* go on the pension at 60 or 65 because we are
wearing out, we will *always* do so *at that age*, even if we are then in
the prime of extended-longevity middle age. Note the mournful `our final
days', which has just a moment earlier been postulated as an additional 40
percent of mid-life healthy lifespan.
We're going to have to work *hard* on this default meme, team.
Damien Broderick