>


The Earth has plenty of space, it's the cities that are crowded.

I was not referring to space but consumption of resources and environmental impact. Which is proportional to the population and its technological advancement.
So yes, overpopulation is a thing, as it is what we are doing now.

Also the trend of population growth seems to be the more crowded is it and less opportunities there are, the less kids people have.

So, as opportunities are in the cities, but the people in the cities have less kids, that sounds like actually a balancing thing. Maybe cool ?

As for for your second point, what do you mean?
What is "the youth's place in society"?

As more and more people get to 100, 200 years old or maybe more, the values and input of youngsters (20 to 40) will be less and less taken into account, whereas it is when you are the most creative and disruptive (in all social classes and to an extreme for entrepreneurs). This is already something that we see today.
In essence, if a society gets old, it tends to be more conservative. Not necessarily in the mean of politics right/left wing, but more in the sense of "let's not rock the boat, don't disrupt things, don't change stuff". Do you want a society that does not evolve ?
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >

“…we aren’t supposed to be living that long natrually”.
So now I’m old AND artificial? >

You are what you eat, now stop talking, plastic. >

'Your honor, if you are what you eat, than I am an innocent man.' >

r/holup >

r/deadsubreddits >

How do you  reply to a subreddit with 3 million followers with a dead subreddit implying the 1st was a dead subreddit and not see the irony in this situation. >

r/IronicSubreditComments >

wow there really is a sub for everything >

This is every species..... you think an old ass moose is carefree, happily skipping along until the wolves pull it down? >

Humans have a particularly long old age, though. Most animals go from elderly to dead fairly quickly. >

Most animals have natural predators that like to take advantage of the weaknesses brought on by old age. >

So did humanity until civilization mitigated most of it. >

…which is the point of civilization? >

I thought big anime tiddies was the point >

Even back when hygiene and healthcare weren't up to snuff, living up to 70 was fairly common. What drove the stat down was child mortality. There were SO MANY kids died before even reaching puberty. But if you can reach adulthood, odds were good you can live a long life. >

I don’t think you understand, I said suffering not dying. I’m talking about the health issues so many elderly people have; arthritis, cancer, respiratory diseases, Alzheimers etc etc >

and they had those in 1500 too, because people living to 70 wasn't unusual >

Not OP and I do agree with you, but OPs post doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with now vs the past in terms of people living a long time. >

If think it does. I might be wrong but this post seems to imply that with the technological advances we extended our natural life span and that's why we suffer physically more when older.
However, as stated, people have been living to older ages even before the technological advances. >

1500s is after quite a lot of advances >

But of course not the ones I'm talking about. Recent technological advances are incomparably higher that those that happened up until 1500. >

I mean are they? In what scale? How do you decide that? You gonna tell that to a caveman? >

In the sense that the access to health services and quality of life luxurious is way easier than it was before. Damn my parents had it way harder than me and my grandparents even harder. >

So? Everything you said also counts for that era when you compare it to a caveman. >

is that true? i thought in the olden days people happily lived until 60 or 70 >

The first Neanderthal skeleton found was a man in his old age. Which is why we have the "hunched over" caveman image, the first one literally was because he was old af. >

It’s an exception. Average is average, neanderthals lived very little. Same as first humans.
You are not only using wrong statistic here, you are coming up with things in the fly. 
25% of Neanderthals survived past 40.
Hunched is because people in the 1800s thought that Neanderthals were a link between an ape and a human and supposed to walk like a chimp. You literally made up the old hunched thing. >

Thing is that the average was brought down so much because of infant deaths which were incredibly common >

It’s an exception. Average is average, neanderthals lived very little. Same as first humans. >

Euhm no, kids died which brought the average down. Thats simple mathematics man >

No. There is average lifespan statistics and archeological evidence of findings which is a different statistic. 
Or you gonna invent high percentage of old neanderthals that does not exist? Evidence of old neanderthals is sparse.
25% of neanderthals survived past 40. Twice as less than now. >

Actually the natural lifespan of a person hasn't really changed over the last few thousand years. It's just that we are not dying to diseases and accidents as often as before.
Aging is still happening at the same rate, it's not getting better. It could though... >

I mean, that's not quite true.  We have census data from ancient Egypt, for example, that shows that living to your 60s and 70s was actually pretty common, but you didn't really have anywhere near the amount of people living to 80 or 90 or 100 that we have today.
Life expectancy has gone up /mostly/ because of reductions in child mortality and childbirth mortality, sure, but it's also gone up some because people live longer. >

Yes, life expectancy has gone up, because people live longer. But the reason people live longer is that we can cure (and manage) a lot more medical conditions that the Egyptians could.
The thing we call "aging" is a completely different phenomenon that happens to everyone regardless of their health. It's basically your cells "forgetting" what to do in your body and this inevitably casues some medical problems sooner or later.
We haven't made any impactful scientific progress in stopping aging since the egyptians, although there have been promising results recently. >

'supposed to' is awkward phrasing. It all comes down to which genes are passed on. In other words, we suffer as old people, because suffering when you're old does not impact your procreation.Note: I'm not a biologist, read Dawkins - the Selfish Gene for some easy to understand insights. >

The amount of people that don’t understand this is exasperating >

i dont understand this, and i am exasperated >

Unless I am misunderstanding what you’re not understanding.
What they’re saying is that the reason we suffer from all sorts of problems as we age is because anything that kills you after you reproduce ceases to matter as far as evolution is concerned, as long as it doesn’t also kill your kids before they reproduce.
For example.  Say you carry genes that cause you to drop dead at age 10.  You die young, don’t have kids, those genes don’t get passed on.
Now say you have those same genes, except you drop dead at 25.  You might have kids, you might not.  The gene can get passed on through successive generations, but is going to be kind of rare.
Once again, except now you keel over at 70.  A very good chance you’ve had kids, multiple kids.  Those kids have kids and you’ve helped raise them.  Those genes are definitely getting passed on.
Replace “genes” with things like cancer, dementia, organ failure, teeth falling out or just about any sort of disorder that can cripple or kill you. >

oh i was jk. but ye you make good points >

Yeap, since about 5 years old life’s been a struggle… shoulda been put down then >

I really think a bigger issue is that the older we get the less likely we are to keep in shape.
Say you stop doing most physical activity in your 50's. This is very common, at least in North America. Now compound not working out over the course of 20-30 years, you're now 70-80. This along with old injuries greatly effects your general health.
This doesn't even take into account a poor diet over those years.
My Grandfather is in his late 70's, he eats well and works out 2 hours a day. He is in great shape and luckily has no health concerns. His biggest regret is not starting this healthy lifestyle until his mid 60's.
Obviously genetics play a role in this as well, but that can be difficult to control yourself depending on your medical history. >

I don’t subscribe to the logic “we aren’t supposed to XYZ because for hundreds of thousands of years humanity did ABC”. We do tons of things differently from our ancestors and they have proven to be good (or benign):

Frequent bathing/showers
Brushing one’s teeth
Drinking disinfected (not raw) water
Flying on a plane
Playing video games
Etc, etc >

"Aren't supposed to" is a quirky phrase.                     
It makes it sound like the universe has an opinion on how human life should go.
We "aren't supposed to" survive many diseases and disorders, but over millenia we've advanced to the point where we can cure and treat many afflictions.                
There was a point in time where we thought "Pain is an essential part of life. To feel pain is to live."                  
The agony of being cut or having a tooth pulled was just the price of surgery.                   
The idea of anesthesia ridiculous, and it's invention overturned world views.
The suffering of getting old is just the accusation of damage outpacing our healing.  As we improve medicine, the image you have of "suffering old" will shift to an older and older age.
There really is no argument against advancing medicine to halt or reverse aging.            
Bizarre and scary, sure.           
But so would modern cultures and concepts be if you explained them to an ancient person. >


There really is no argument against advancing medicine to halt or reverse aging.

Overpopulation and not giving the youth their place in the society ? >

Overpopulation isnt a thing. 
The Earth has plenty of space, it's the cities that are crowded. 
Also the trend of population growth seems to be the more crowded is it and less opportunities there are, the less kids people have.
As for for your second point, what do you mean?
What is "the youth's place in society"?