Well, if we do come up with treatment(s) that result in an extra (say) 100 years of healthy life, there are lots of things that would have to be changed.
Retirement/Pensions. No-one's going to retire at 60/65. But it might well be that people will take some years off work every few decades, to just relax, or to learn new things, or retrain for a new job.
Copyright: Would have to return to a fixed length from publication, or the public domain (& inspiration for new works) would dry up.
Religion: No doubt there will be groups that object to the life extension, and will refuse it, or take action to prevent others using it. (Pickets at life extension clinics. Murder of doctors.)
But I don't see any possible problems from living longer being worse than the problem of senility and death in your first century. I'd be interested to hear whether you disagree (with an example!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drib
I'm talking about the implication(s) upon the ordering of events relating to health care, contractual and legal issues, in addition to ethical and religious concerns.
|