A great time to think about changing how human economy works. How to enable humans to have great living, while respecting planetary boundaries and allowing advanced automation, so the need for for human work in significantly diminished?

Your argument about unfeasibility of aging damage repair reminds me of arguments of people avoiding to which a human body would be torn apart if humans would travel by train into tunnel at the “staggering” speed of 30 km/h. They had basically well sounded arguments that time. Then people have tried it and find it working 🤷🏼‍♂️

Yes, repairing all damage caused by aging is very, very hard. But it is neither needed to be done completely to have some meaningful effect (partial repair provides partial life extension), nor we need to work by nanobots on DNA of every cell (in many cases it is sufficient to kill old cell and provide a new one).

It will take some time and a lot of effort. But for meaningful results we do not need such sci-fi tech you have described.

I have never written that humans are biologically special. My argument was that number of cell divisions and heartbeats is inadequate measurement for length of life. It is a good measurement of biological state of body through. But even then it have to be considered in context of other measurements.

I basically agree. But cell divisions and heartbeats are not best measures. Humans are already outliers when it comes to number of heartbeats per life. And with advancements of therapies for repairing damage caused by aging we potentially can extend both of them quite substantially.

As / if caloric restriction is the main driver, it is not a great sign for a human longevity. It seems that caloric restriction have comparably much smaller effect on humans. The leading theory is that life extension effect observed in short lived animals is an evolutionary adaptation for natural famines. Genes wants to propagate, so when there is a famine, a short lived specie rather live longer to have offsprings rather than dying. For them an extension of life by 1 year is significant in comparison to their usual life. But for long lived species there is no significant evolutionary pressure to develop and maintain this, as humans can more easily wait thru even longer famines and reproduce after that. There are some effects on humans, but it is definitely so clear cut as with mice.

For comparison: Europe as a continent is paying around 1 billion euros every month just for Microsoft (Office) 365. And additional around 4 billion euros for just a couple of other softwares and services, mostly cloud.

If you want to offset those losses of more expensive fossil fuels, you may request your government to not only transition to clean energy but also massively use free / libre / open source, or at least European software.

And ReactOS.

Not really. It’s a forecasting platform. It weights the forecasts based on previous success of forecasters. So when people have forecasted something well in past it is more probable that they will forecast it well also now.

Well, doing a software maintenance is not a small task. And it is important for a software of scale of Lemmy.

In the same time, if the developers insist of using the donations for the “testing” instance that is known for political censorship and that would probably be vastly defederated if it wasn’t the “official” one, it becomes questionable who should donate…

I am OK about people funding a software to promote their goals (unless it’s a misuse of monopoly or something similar). I just don’t belong to the target group. The developers clearly need the resources main. Maybe a solution could be that only people politically aligned with the maintenars donate to them and use Lemmy, and we others could migrate to PieFed and donate for its maintenance and development.

There are some interesting predictions from Metaculus, a prediction aggregation platform:

• Will there be a war between Russia and one or more NATO countries, but not the US, by 2035? - 13%chance
• When (if ever) will Russia conduct a direct military attack against a NATO member state? - 15 May 2031
• Will Russia attack a European NATO member before 2035? - 40%chance

I come from a net receiver country and I feel for the net contributors. They have put their shit together so well that they can pay for development of others. But those others often have troubles to put their shit together… Even in small things like stopping to pay for US software where there is a free alternative that they can use. Countries like Austria, Germany and Denmark are setting up the example but it is slow to spread to net receivers 😐

I want more money so we can develop faster and be a well functioning European family. But that needs to be effectively used money on structural development, not just subsidies to feed folks that just sit, hold the status quo and just paint their outdated think in a new colour.

New arms race to the bottom to guarantee Mutually Assured Destruction?