(Not trolling here but curious)
Why?
So I get that when you get closer to c you need exponentially more energy to accelerate.
But what if we just got to 0.25c. That's only 2,000 years to destination, and totally doable I would guess
If it's true life expectancy hasn't changed but you're just healthier in your golden years, why did they extend the mortality tables out to 120 instead of 100?
I see an argument with no facts to back it up, trying to counter an argument with facts backing it up.
Yes, but is it maintainable?
Unions work only when they control the supply of labor. As the auto unions have shown, if that labor starts going to China, unionized shops are no longer profitable, and it's entirely possibly your benefits could be cut. That's even worse then a crappy retirement benefit: being 80 and having your benefit cut.
Although, admittedly it's much better than the no benefit most of us get
If your life is so miserable that you can't wait till the few years you have left on earth (where health problems may prevent you from spending whatever nest egg you've saved on fun, or perhaps take it) perhaps you should consider a different career.
You didn't read my post, or didn't understand it. The actuarial tables are forward looking.
While you may have had grandparents die at or before 72, the MEAN of the POPULATION GOING FORWARD has increased, and the TAILS OF THE DISTRIBUTION are now farther out.
The actuarial tables also take into account how healthy your grandparents are. Were they obese chain smokers? Might be a reason they didn't live past 72.
So, YMMV.
You can of course stop being so lazy and google the mortality tables yourself. Here.
Yeah but why?
Seems to me they might as well start passing other laws like declaring the blue of the sky is the blue between 450 and 495nm, and no other blue will be considered blue.
So actually one of the biggest problems facing the retirement industry is the increasing age of death.
50 years ago, the actuarial tables of mortality went to 100. All annuity and life insurance payouts were based on them, and it assume all the population would be dead at 100. If you were lucky enough to live to 100, your life insurance policy would "mature" and you would collect the value of it, tax free.
These days, thanks to increases in medical care, too many people have been living past 100. So they've revise the tables, and extended them out till 120. That was a decade ago (maybe more).
As medical technology gets better (and it's constantly getting better) you're going to have people living longer and longer, with better quality of life. This is going to push mortality (statistically speaking) out further and further.
That is, unfortunately unsustainable with our current standards of retirements. It used to be if you actually drew on social security and your pension, you were so worn out from working that you could expect maybe 5 years of "golden years." Now people are drawing down their pensions for 20, 30, 40 years!
We simply haven't budgeted enough for that sort of retirement. Expect that in 10-20 years "retirement" becomes a privilege for the rich (as in when Mark Zuckerburg became a billionaire he could retire). The rest of us will keep working until our bodies are worn out (maybe we'll stop thinking in terms of a retirement benefit and more in terms of a disability benefit).
Why would they even need to pass such a law?
Good luck with that
Well that's an interesting issue (and quite controversial here as well).
One friend of mine works as a dental assistant, and lives in social housing. She takes home maybe 2000 a month after taxes, maybe less, so if she didn't have social housing she couldn't afford to live in Amsterdam, anywhere.
Another friend of mine works at a bank. He now makes quite a bit of money, but keeps his social housing and basically gets to bank an extra few hundred a month due to his social housing status.
You might read my whole post before commenting, I quote (myself):
Plus "climbers" are envisioned to come in multiple forms and be able to pass each other. You might have a "human transport climber" that ascends at 20km / h but is unable to hold more than a few people and crew and a cargo climber that is bigger but slower.
Maybe I am a bit off on my numbers of height / speed but IANASEE (I am not a space elevator engineer) but it would appear the SEEs have done the number crunching already
Low earth orbit is only about 200 km in space. Even if you're talking about a speed of 1 km per day you'll still be able to deliver payloads to LEO within the year. Rockets still exist with their $25k per kg fee for stuff you need in space NOW but the space elevator has the ability to bring things into space at a much cheaper rate (maybe $300 / kg)
Plus "climbers" are envisioned to come in multiple forms and be able to pass each other. You might have a "human transport climber" that ascends at 20km / h but is unable to hold more than a few people and crew and a cargo climber that is bigger but slower.
Wikipedia, as always, is a good starting point:
Lifetime is not an issue.
Just look at the Empire State Building. 80 years old and nobody's going to demolish it. Or the flatiron building. 115 years old, no problems there.
Construction can be done in such a way that an arcology can last. That's not an issue.
I'm more likely to ask WHY? Given if things with climate change do go downhill it could be our last resort but why do it if it's not necessary?
I see the benefits and the drawbacks of both. The dutch idea is that they want to keep neighborhoods intact. So, gentrification doesn't happen really. I look at the north end in Boston as a great example: none of the ethnic italians (who are mostly all very old at this point) can afford to keep their places so it's becoming a sort of italian themed area (and not an Italian area).
On the other hand, the policies of the government make it VERY hard to find a place to live. Once you have one, you're golden, but getting one can take months. And it's not uncommon to have emergency situations where people are unable to find a place to live.
This is a similar reason why I would never live in NYC (and think twice about Boston). Housing just costs too damned much. And worse, if housing costs a lot all the other living expenses cost more. Groceries charge more because they pay higher rent, ditto for any other basic needs..
What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey
