I see your point. Tbh the question is a bit wider and out of scope of this thread. Sufficient to say "because unhealthy, disease, loss of all functions come with longevity and they come real bad." there are actually indications that this is not a causation from the time (longevity) but pathological damage on the living organism.

I dont know why causation matters at all. Until kit ceases to be a fact that longevity means getting older with increasing -ve impact then longevity is not something we want in practice. This may change one day though there are possibly insummountable brain problems.

Its was one of those nasty mythological tricks to grant the wish of longevity. Its was a curse not a boon.

Let's say you own a business that employs 10 people. This business is either your primary or only source of income. The reason you have created this business is to generate revenue and make a profit.

Now say you sit down and can quantify, to a reasonable measure, how 'hard' each particular employee works and how difficult and time and energy consuming each person's role in the company is.

After this analysis, you realize, from observation etc, that the person who seems to work 'the least', and expends the least amount of energy is one of your 3 salespeople named Tom. However, you realize that Tom brings in at least 3X more revenue into your business than anyone else in your business. He somehow does this though while seemingly working the fewest hours and just basically doing a minimal amount of work.

Tom comes to you and says he is thinking of moving on to something else. So what do you do? Do you pay him more than anyone else to keep him, or do you say he should not be payed more because he literally works the least out of anyone on your staff?

grunching

obama is bad for americans, his policies hurt and make us poorer. joseph stalin also had an important job, as leader of the soviet union, do you think he deserved a palatial lifestyle? the executive of dunkin donuts, runs a company that turns over a profit and is seen as valuable to millions of customers who voluntarily trade their dollars for DD products.

I think you're both right in a sense, but I'd side with Rikers based on the fact my life is already much better AND longer than a coal miner in the 1800's.

I'm not sure either, hence the discussion.

I got paid pretty well doing math problems in the past.

I've also paid nice sums for a decently cooked steak.

I mean "perception" in the usual manner.

If you think I am worth a lot, you pay me more than if you think I am worth little.

Income system is not moral, nor is the economy, nor is having to work for income, or government, or belief systems, or nationality, or the school systems that taught you all this stuff, or the teachers that taught you or the lessons they taught and so one. Its all the same propaganda and propaganda is not moral.

If you are trying to say it is all immoral, I disagree.

If you are saying it has nothing to do with morals (aka, amoral), I disagree.

This all the stuff of morality.

Well I guess to clarify, i think i mean immoral, these things are 'bad'. I guess if we have further to go into that, ill let you comment since we had to clarify what I meant.

That's a very bad argument.

Its a bit like smoking because in the future people wont be harmed by smoking.

Wanna bet that a system where rich get richer and the poor/middle class stay the same or worse or even grow only a bit and the rich never reinvest the vast majority of their money for the great benefit of society only their local benefit is mathematically destined to crash and give birth to a revolution? A scientific revolution! Welcome to the future. Capitalism is dead and someone that trades heavily the market (and therefore knows all the dirty details about money making and how badly the markets reflect the real economy and how unfree they are and manipulated and against the core values and benefit of society) is telling you this. We have only one hope as mankind and its not profit making. At least not this kind of profit...

It's easy to say that now. After you have been given all the statistical analysis and Monte Carlo simulations. Back in the day when there were no computers the only way to have a decent self correcting function in the society was the capitalism way. Socialism failed because of that (no decent feedback loop). And I would bet that failure in the current society is not one of the capitalism but the socialistic part of the government not letting the that feedback loop eradicate ineffective economical players (especially the latest banking sector)

what a strawman. The poor have got stunningly richer, nothing like staying anywhere near the same.

Greed is not limited to the rich.

Tbh, I don't get it.... care to explain?

Nobody said anything about doing bad things (-EV) in the present, or am I missing something....