Monthly Archives: March 2009

A Different Idea About Retirement

Well, as Harvey observes in the comments to my March on Washington post, it looks like my suggestion that we raise the retirement age has not been greeted with too much enthusiasm. I can’t blame people for not being excited about the idea of a delayed retirement. However, I did think people would have more enthusiasm for the idea of healthy life extension.

I guess, as a marketing guy, I should have known that “let’s raise the retirement age” is not the most appealing way to package longevity research.

I should take a lesson from J. Storrs Hall who tells us that we should stop talking about “the singularity” and start talking about “early retirement” for humanity. He makes a good case — we are potentially just a few generations of technology away from human labor being rendered obsolete. I’ve suggested that one possibility, in a world where the machines do all the productive labor, would be for human beings to all have BS jobs. Josh notes that there are other, perhaps more well-thought-out ideas about how we will handle wealth distribution in a roboconomy.

Anyhow, “early retirement” sounds like something we could all go for — a chance to get out of the rat race and pursue our dreams. Will people stop working? Of course not. People will work at things they care about, irrespective of economic need.

I have to admit, that sounds a lot better than delayed retirement. Here we have a future we might get people marching towards. What say you, Harvey?

earlyretirement.jpg

20 Things You Didn't Know About Time

Actually, I knew quite a few of them, as I’m sure most of you will, too.

Items 1 and 20 serve as interesting counterpoints. It would be difficult to reconcile them. I mean, if time is an illusion, then what is it exactly that is on the verge of ending? The illusion? Or is it such a convincing illusion that it takes the entire universe down with it?

20 Things You Didn’t Know About Time

Actually, I knew quite a few of them, as I’m sure most of you will, too.

Items 1 and 20 serve as interesting counterpoints. It would be difficult to reconcile them. I mean, if time is an illusion, then what is it exactly that is on the verge of ending? The illusion? Or is it such a convincing illusion that it takes the entire universe down with it?

FFR: Breakthrough Ideas for 2009, Part 3

Phil Bowermaster, Stephen Gordon, and Michael Darling presented their own breakthrough ideas for 2009. What innovations today will make a difference tomorrow?


Listening Options:

Stream our latest shows:


Or:

add_to_itunes.gif

Or download MP3′s for all the archived shows at:

Listen to FastForward Radio... on Blog Talk Radio


Click “Continue Reading” for the show notes:

Here's a March on Washington They Wouldn't Expect

For a number of reasons that we’ve gone over and over, we don’t talk about politics at The Speculist. But no politics and no religion is Rule 2. Rule 1 is that we can talk about whatever we want.

So with that in mid, let me make the odd foray into politics and suggest that its time for a march on Washington. We’ll call it the MMAMWM: the Million Middle-Aged Men and Women March. Inspired by Glenn Reynolds’ recent Forbes essay on longevity, we’ll assemble the aforementioned million-or-so 40-and-uppers* to march on Washington and demand that the retirement age be raised.

I’m 46 — I’d like to see them raise the retirement age to 80 or higher. All things being equal, having people stay in the work force those additional 15-20 years would be a tremendous boon to productivity and would significantly ease the strain (or delay the meltdown, depending on whose rosy scenario you want to follow) of Social Security and Medicaid.

But there’s a catch. The plan to delay retirement has to come with a commitment to fund longevity research. Funding would be distributed through a series of push prizes aimed at achieving very aggressive goals related to extending healthy, viable lifespan. As Glenn points out, you can’t just have people living longer. For this delayed retirement scheme to work, we need to remain vital and healthy. In fact, each incremental addition to the retirement age would be tied to a specific aging breakthrough. Possible examples

Develop reliable preventative treatments for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, retirement age goes up to 67.

Breakthroughs in preventing heart disease and diabetes**, retirement age goes up to 70.

Breakthroughs in preventing and treating cancer**, retirement age goes up to 72.

Breakthroughs in extending and enhancing cognitive ability, retirement age goes up to 75.

Breakthroughs in restoring and maintaining muscle and bone tissue, retirement age goes up to 80.

Heck, if we did all that we could probably raise the retirement age to 100. But let’s not get carried away. With the initial march, we’ll only insist that it be raised to 80.

marchonwashington.jpg

* Is that a valid definition of middle-aged? The term seems so arbitrary.

** We would have to be very specific, as these are occurring all the time anyhow.

Here’s a March on Washington They Wouldn’t Expect

For a number of reasons that we’ve gone over and over, we don’t talk about politics at The Speculist. But no politics and no religion is Rule 2. Rule 1 is that we can talk about whatever we want.

So with that in mid, let me make the odd foray into politics and suggest that its time for a march on Washington. We’ll call it the MMAMWM: the Million Middle-Aged Men and Women March. Inspired by Glenn Reynolds’ recent Forbes essay on longevity, we’ll assemble the aforementioned million-or-so 40-and-uppers* to march on Washington and demand that the retirement age be raised.

I’m 46 — I’d like to see them raise the retirement age to 80 or higher. All things being equal, having people stay in the work force those additional 15-20 years would be a tremendous boon to productivity and would significantly ease the strain (or delay the meltdown, depending on whose rosy scenario you want to follow) of Social Security and Medicaid.

But there’s a catch. The plan to delay retirement has to come with a commitment to fund longevity research. Funding would be distributed through a series of push prizes aimed at achieving very aggressive goals related to extending healthy, viable lifespan. As Glenn points out, you can’t just have people living longer. For this delayed retirement scheme to work, we need to remain vital and healthy. In fact, each incremental addition to the retirement age would be tied to a specific aging breakthrough. Possible examples

Develop reliable preventative treatments for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, retirement age goes up to 67.

Breakthroughs in preventing heart disease and diabetes**, retirement age goes up to 70.

Breakthroughs in preventing and treating cancer**, retirement age goes up to 72.

Breakthroughs in extending and enhancing cognitive ability, retirement age goes up to 75.

Breakthroughs in restoring and maintaining muscle and bone tissue, retirement age goes up to 80.

Heck, if we did all that we could probably raise the retirement age to 100. But let’s not get carried away. With the initial march, we’ll only insist that it be raised to 80.

marchonwashington.jpg

* Is that a valid definition of middle-aged? The term seems so arbitrary.

** We would have to be very specific, as these are occurring all the time anyhow.

Fear Is the Mind-Killer

FuturePundit reports:

Propranolol Permanently Reduces Human Fear Response

There’s nothing to fear but fear itself – and even that can be eliminated with a drug treatment.

A team of Dutch researchers under the leadership of Vici-winner Merel Kindt has successfully reduced the fear response. They weakened fear memories in human volunteers by administering the beta-blocker propranolol. Interestingly, the fear response does not return over the course of time. Top journal Nature Neuroscience published the findings on 15 February 2009.

Until recently, it was assumed that the fear memory could not be deleted. However, Klindt’s team has demonstrated that changes can indeed be effected in the emotional memory of human beings.

The researchers found that if they caused humans to remember a fearful memory (seeing a picture of a spider and at the same moment feeling pain) and administered propranolol that reduced the fear response when spider pictures were shown again at a later date.

The memory of connections between two events were still recallable but no longer elicited the feeling of fear.

Randall Parker comments:

Got any fear response you want to dampen down?

I wonder what would happen if people were shown a politician’s picture while someone described a policy that they feared. Would they lose their fear higher taxes or their fear of a reduction of the welfare state? Could people be conditioned to accept (or at least object to less strongly) policies that they currently oppose? Could captured spies get treated with propranolol to reduce their fear if what happens they they divulge secret information while undergoing interrogation?

I think the political example is really interesting. I wrote a while back that fear of the future, like fear of the other, is an evolutionary response that is largely misapplied in this era. Both fears still serve a useful basic function, but they have been picked up and carried along by sets of memes that have little to do with protecting us from any real danger and that make it harder for us to capitalize on opportunities. The fear of the other has been co-opted by political ideology and intensified by the fact that we have made good progress (at least in some parts of society) of eliminating other bases for considering someone “other.” Ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation — these do not define an “other” that it is any longer acceptable to fear.

But liberal or conservative? Look out. The visceral reaction that a typical Kos Kid feels when looking at a picture of Sarah Palin, or that a Freeper feels when seeing Ted Kennedy, probably has more to do with the mammal brain’s reflex at sensing a reptile nearby than any reasoned policy differences. The opposite side of the aisle has become the dreaded Other and, being about the only Other we’re allowed to have, has become quite the bogeyman.

To Randall’s question, what if you take this fear out of the equation? Suddenly policy ideas simply become policy ideas. You might very well still disagree with them, but they (or rather the people who hold them) don’t necessarily trigger fear or revulsion. I think that would be a distinct improvement, but I’m not sure that beta-blockers are required . After all, we have memetically programmed ourselves (or allowed ourselves to be programmed) to initiate a fear-of-other response to political ideas we disagree with. If willing, I’m guessing we ought to be able to deprogram ourselves, too.

Of course, there are many other possible applications for fear inhibitors. They might be helpful for terminal patients (who want them.) On a similar note, would state laws require administering fear inhibitors to prisoners on death row? Would athletes benefit for them, or would they end up destroying themselves in short order? The same questions would apply to police, firefighters, military personnel. Fear of danger/pain acts as a powerful preventative agent. If you remove it, some people might become more effective at performing certain tasks, but that would likely come at a high cost to their personal safety.

Another potential application would be removing social fear and anxiety. Take away the fear of rejection and the fear of looking ridiculous, and people might start doing some really remarkable things. Most of the truly successful people in the world have found a way to subjugate those fears, but — as with soldiers and the fear of danger — maybe subjugation gives better results than elimination. A world without social fear might very well be one of high achievement, but it might also be a world full to the brim of unbelievably pushy and obnoxious people.

Then we might need a new drug to help us cope with all those jerks.