Living Forever?

Have you ever thought about living to be 1,000 years old? Have you ever thought that it could be really possible? Probably not. But what if I told you that it was possible, even probable.

Now that sounds like an enormous jump in technology, doesn't it? The good thing is that we don't need to do it all at once. Let me explain. Biologists in the field believe that in the next fifteen to thirty years we will be able to implement in people moderate age reduction techniques now used in mice. That means at minimum, a life expectancy increase of 30 years. Not preserving an old person for 30 more years, but being physiologically 30 years younger. On the exponential scale of technological advancement, this gives us the jump start we need to stave off aging indefinitely. Within that 30 years of life science has bought us, we will have found better ways of putting off the aging process, giving us an even greater lifespan. Soon enough, our life expectancy should rise more than a year, every year, effectively meaning that we will not age. Of course we can still die by a host of other means; accidents, violence, global catastrophe, certain diseases (although it's worth mentioning that 80% of diseases affect us in old age, and this same technology that is fighting aging is also fighting these other diseases).

Don't believe this is really science? Check this page out.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/39

Now we have to ask ourselves, should we live forever? What about overpopulation, immortal dictators, the starving poor in Africa? Wouldn't it be boring to live so long? I think these are good questions, but I don't think they weigh as much as the fact that aging kills one out of one people that are not killed by something else first. Whats worse to me, is that it is a very slow, painful, and sometimes degrading death. These years are the ones I fear the most in life, all my friends dying around me, loosing my faculties to do the things I want, and knowing that it is only going to get worse until you die. So for me, dieing is not the scary thing, but being old. Personally, I would love to live to be a thousand. Then I could be the renaissance man that I always wanted to be.

Public Transportation

One of the things that I most hope changes soon with new technology (and yet seems least likely), is the matter of our dependence on the automobile. Technology is well underway in creating more fuel efficient cars, and politicians are lauding how we should decrease our dependence on foreign oil (all well and good). But nobody seems to give much thought about public transportation being the wave of the future. As world population increases, we are going to have to use our land more efficiently. Go ahead and look on Google Earth, fully two thirds of our developed land is dedicated towards roads and parking lots. But lets look at some other pros and cons.

On average, we spend $9,000 every year to own, maintain,and run a car. That's $18,000 for a two car family! Now lets start talking about taxes. I'm sure you can imagine the untold billions that are spent on building and maintaining our roads. Now lets think about energy consumption, our dependence on the Middle East, air pollution, water pollution because of impermeable surfaces, and auto accidents being the largest killer of kids 0-25. It seems to me that our use of the automobile is one of the worst habits we've got.

Ok, but lets step back for a moment. The car is what drives our society. It lets us get to work, live where we want to, truck cargo around the country, and it gives us the freedom to go virtually wherever we want. How can we give that up? Also, using public transportation is inconvenient, slow, unstylish, and sometimes dangerous. That's exactly what I would like to change. I think that if our government could spend half of it's transportation budget on public transportation, than these facilities would be clean, efficient, quick, safe, and free. That's right, free. The amount that it cost to run public transportation is so low compared to automobile travel, that I believe it would be simple matter for the government to pick up the cost completely, in order to encourage people to leave their cars behind.

Of course, this newly funded transportation system would need a massive overhaul. When I think of transportation in the future, I am not thinking about buses, subways and trains. When it comes to public transportation of the future, I think Walt Disney had it right; monorails and people movers. 1) Monorails; fairly long distance trains which would go at higher speed, and be elevated above the ground for minimal obstruction in urban areas, and minimal environmental intrusion in nature. The elevated trains might also to less susceptible to vandalism and crime. 2)People Movers; although the ones at Disneyland didn't go very fast (it was a '60s prototype after all), they could go as fast as a car once they sped up. Since you can jump right on at a station in a continuous line, there should almost never be any waiting. And because they are on tracks going a regulated speed, there will virtually never be any accidents. Unlike Disneyland, these people movers would be on a vast network which would connect society much the same way that roads do now, minus the inefficiency, fuel consumption and accidents. Very similar to the cars in Minority Report without the weirdness of going up the sides of buildings.

Independant Politics

Is it just me, or does our current dual party system seem to be naturally divisive, and compromising on many people's values? Though I am probably more middle of the road than most, I have got to believe that almost everybody disagrees with at least some of their political party's agenda. Why does it have to be red or blue, liberal or conservative?

I guess in the ideal form of government, every legislator would think for themselves on every issue, and political parties would be non-essential. Unfortunately, I believe that it is through political parties that any of us can make sense of what is going on in Washington. Here is my solution, mandate more parties which have serious influence (don't ask me what I mean by mandate, I have no idea).

I think if our government had five or six or eight relatively equal parties, our government would start to work the way it is supposed to. Politicians won't have to be against gun control, just because they are pro-life, you won't have to agree with expanding social security just because you are against the war in Iraq. If there are multiple parties, bills will always have to be cross party to get anywhere. Legislators will have to work together to get anything done, and voting along party lines will probably be on the decline (not to mention not as decisive). In order to get an environmental bill passed, you would want to talk to the liberals who want to preserve the earth for their children and the conservatives who feel we are commissioned by God to protect His creation. Hopefully gun control will never come up. Back alley deals would be extremely hard to pull of when eight parties are involved.

The other big advantage would be that no individual party would have a majority in Congress. This means that nobody could push the country around because they have 51% of the legislators. It also means that your vote would be more personalized. Could you imagine a party that is pro-life, supportive of homosexuals, for gun control, against big government, pro-religion, a pro-environmentalism? Why not?

Living Simply

Ok, now I know that I am far from living out my ideals here, but at least I have come to the realization that my goals in this life, are dramatically different from what the media and advertising companies would want them to be. Basically, it is the goal to live simply.

In America's culture of consumerism (a trait found almost everywhere else in the developed world as well), we are told from a very young age to strive to achieve our dreams, and to make something of ourselves. It's pretty much taken for granted that our dreams and goals include being famous and rich. From our parent's generation we have learned the morals about working hard to provide for your family. But at what point are you no longer providing for your family, but spoiling them? Why do we think that being famous will make us happy? It doesn't seem to work for the people in Hollywood. Will being rich make us happier?

Yes.

Statistic show that rich people, are on average, more happy and content with their life than poor people or those with average wealth. Makes sense doesn't it? But doesn't this evidence seem to argue against my point? I doubt it. I'm sure that most of these people without wealth in these studies are not people purposefully living simply, but rather those who are trying to become wealthy, but failing. Big difference.

So why should we want to live simply? Most of all, it would not be for our benefit, but for other's. Assuming that you hold the same type of job, but just spend a lot less money, that means that you can use more of that money to help people not as well off as you. Secondly, all that consumerism that you are not participating in is really helping the environment. From the smaller house, to the packaging not used, to the labor and materials not spent on frivolous expenditures means that that energy is not being wasted.

But there is also an attraction to the lifestyle. Not living to the limit of your means will do wonders for your stress level. If you have a difficult month, no sweat, you have plenty of money to cover it. Emergencies won't have to put financial pressure on top of your list of things to worry about, and you will probably be much more generous when charities come around, which means you will be helping both the poor, and your community. Something much more important than having the latest iPod.

I am hoping that in this generation, value will be found in information, community, and experience; more than in materialism and status. Computers tend to level the playing field when it comes to what people can do, so maybe that will make a difference. Perhaps our parent's generation succeeded in providing for us so well, that we don't need to have any fear of the want of necessities that haunted our grandparent's generation. Perhaps we could rise above the hoarding instinct that is necessary for survival in a world without enough resources for everybody. But i think technology has brought us above that level. Can society catch up with it?