# Longevity Poll



## ScottSF (Dec 30, 2008)

Hi all, I'm conducting a little poll about attitudes about longevity by gender.  If anyone is interested please vote.  Thanks, Cheers and Happy new year on whatever clock you count them. 
A Longevity Poll « Skiznot’s Bliznog


----------



## ratsy (Dec 31, 2008)

It is early in the poll but I still find it amusing that more men would accept this than women.  They may not want to birth children for 600 years...could you imagine how out of control the population would get????  I would think everyone would have a 1 child limit much like China in this case.


----------



## ScottSF (Dec 31, 2008)

Yes, that has come up discussion too. I almost made it a condition that you're only fertile for one lifetime. I haven't gone into reasons yet but I just seemed to notice a trend in discussions. It's fun seeing if this will support my hypothesis or not. After a week if there's still few women participating might have to think of a good place to post. My facebook crowd is pretty 50/50 on gender. Thanks for everyone who participated so far


----------



## tangaloomababe (Dec 31, 2008)

What an interesting poll. Some of me thinks what a great idea but six hundred years is a long time.  I think as long as you have your health it would be a big plus but who would want to work for so long.  Still you could pretty well ensure you would be able to read all those recommended "Books you should read before dying lists"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## nixie (Jan 1, 2009)

mmm, I've voted yes. It would be an amazing experience to see all the changes


----------



## ScottSF (Jan 1, 2009)

It would be such a fundamental change in culture and of course lots of problems to solve as a result, but also lots of time to think about solutions.  BTW, John Varley's Steel Beach is was where I got the idea.  He covers a lot of the consequences of life span extension.


----------



## Somni (Jan 2, 2009)

I'd vote 'Yes' as long as physically fit, means the brain too.  530 years of Alzheimers would not be very nice for you or your family.  Also, do I still get to retire at 66? That would be nice.


----------



## ScottSF (Jan 8, 2009)

I'm sure there would have to be a whole new economy to account for the extended lifespans.  But I would assume there would still have to be some (if minimal) method of earning your keep. Perhaps a life savings can pay for a 66 year vacation and I would guess people would try to develop some kind of passive income in the first 60 years or so.  Or society might move beyond money and earning your keep means you have some level of responsibility.  Like 2 hours of child care a day or maintaining air conditioning. And the conditions grow.

Grrrr I'm trying to go to other relavant forums to get more women to help balance out the data but I guess you cant open a forum account and add a link in the same day.  Its just an informal curiosity poll but votes have dried up and way more women have voted than men.  Thanks everyone who did vote however, definitely a bit of a trend developing.


----------



## Leo (Feb 15, 2009)

I just voted yes.
It would be good to know more about the voters, so as to correlate more factors such as age, reading preferences, etc.

So far you have:
Female - Yes 17% (7 votes)
Female - No 12% (5 votes)
Male - Yes 60% (25 votes)
Male - No 12% (5 votes)


----------



## aniseshaw (Feb 19, 2009)

I voted yes, I woud love to experience life and the world around me for as long as possible.  The concet reminds me of the book _Pandora's Star_, where rejuvenation was successfully implemented and people were living 300 years +.  People would work for entire lifetimes to take a retirement lifetime, single families turned into dynasties with the number of children they had and parents at some point ending up younger than their children.

It was sociologically fascinating!


----------

