I was wondering the same thing ... where's Tasha!!?

I like a lot these ideas but like you suggest, it should be left up to debate amongst a community of people to represent the time, age and level of technology and capabilities of the times they are debated in.

One core thing I often suggest when I debate these things is the idea of wealth and wealth distribution ... it is a hotly debated subject whenever I suggest it because it is always clouded by the prospect or suggestion of communism or socialism and by extension totalitarianism and authoritarianism.

Of everything that could or couldn't be done about government or society, I think instituted wealth equality would make the greatest difference to human development. And it's a simple idea but an idea so controversial that most people disagree with it, question it or just don't even want to think about it.

The idea that an UPPER WEALTH LIMIT should be instituted and permanently set into society. And the limit would still be a high ceiling ... for instance, set it at $100 million ... how could it be unreasonable to think that anyone could live without wealth beyond that limit? In one lifetime? And the governing system would essentially remain the same, no authoritarian system, no big changes to rights of people, no big changes to how society functions or operates, just that one change - to enact a system where wealth of any one person is capped to an upper limit.

Because many of the problems of developing, redeveloping, reshaping, reconstructing, renewing or upgrading government systems or laws ... are all affected and influenced by those with wealth ... and the more wealth any individual or individuals have, the more they are likely to change or affect changes for better or for worse. And conversely, once wealth is better distributed to more people, the more likely it is to develop better, more representative laws and regulations because everyone (or more people) would be able to better represent themselves and influence control.

If we removed the insatiable greed of individual people from the system, then it would more likely be able to better represent everyone as a whole ... rather than always lopsidely represent only those few people with money and power.

Unless the issue of wealth, especially ultra wealth, is addressed ... the problems of developing any kind of new or old government system will always be crippled by those who want to hold onto or protect their wealth and power.

I think we're still a long way away from that Charlie ... in the near future (within 100 years) I'm guessing long life will look and act more like Mitch McConnell ... they will be there and relatively healthy but whether or not their mind is OK will be questionable.

How many hours are we talking about here?

Now I want a LA CUCARACHA horn for my vehicle

The problems of the world will always stay the same no matter what generation the world is in ... it's just human nature and it may get better or worse with time. But having the oldest members of our society take control of how to deal with those issues and problems is not a good idea.

And yes, any new technology to lengthen lifespans will first be made available to the ultra wealthy first ... and maybe shared with everyone else later.

And I never enjoy the arguments that people have about population control. Yes I agree that in our current world and current way of doing things ... if we keep adding a few more billion people to the planet, then yes it is very unsustainable. However, if we changed the way we lived and worked and shared all the world's resources, provided education to every person, gave them food, water, medical care and opportunities to live productive lives, then we would have billions of people working towards solutions instead of spending their time maintaining a destructive system in order to survive. Wealth is completely centralized in the world right now to only a few people with the majority of every other human doing their best to just survive ... so their only recourse is to just keep participating in a system that is destroying the planet ... and when you keep adding people at the bottom of that system, it only makes the problem worse.

So the problem is not population size ... its how our world governing system and wealth system works. Because once you feed people, give them comforts, educate them and make their lives livable, then over time, they have fewer children and if done over a couple hundred years, the population would stabilize (and even decrease) to a manageable level. But it would only work if wealth and resources are equally shared and available to everyone everywhere.

And none of these kinds of conversations much matters to someone who is 70 or 80 years of age because they can see their exit and they have no real investment in a future they will never see ... which is why they should not be allowed to stay in power to lead nations.

Great point ... I still think that the governing system should be upgraded and changed over time and given a major overhaul every few generations just to shake off the old ways of doing things.

But I like your point ... 'some parts of government/constitutional law should be immutable.'

There should be a simple straight forward core of government ... something so simple that it would only be expressed in about a hundred words. Something basically stating the basic rights of 'people' (stating it as people rather than 'man' because it would encompass all genders or any other identity that people might have now or in the future)

That core should be agreed upon to never change because it would be the basis of the current generation and future generations of people far into the future.

Everything else surrounding that core would be up for change, upgrading or even removal ... so that every generation could lose all the old methods of doing things and create new ways of governing in order to support and maintain that single core constitutional idea that never changes.

Garak's the one taking the picture

Are you kidding, the Homer had a domed windshield, two of them! ... full 360 degree unobstructed view of the world .. what does the cybertruck have? Angles! .... The Homer was way ahead of its time

If Democrats can stick to the story they told, are telling and are repeating ... they'll keep winning

I'm not saying this as some right wing nut job ... I'm a socially supporting Canadian that fully supports the NDP, the left leaning party here in Canada. Always have and always will.

The problem I always see with our left leaning parties is that they keep promising things before the election and then ramp up the hope when they get elected and then spend the next few years hovering at the level of hope and either get little done or none at all. And it's always the powers that be, the status quo and monied interests that get in the way. It pervades all of politics with every party (no matter if they are left, center or right) because at the end of the day, its easy to control a political party and a politician simply by threatening their chances of getting re-elected again in the next election.

This just shows how dumb our entire world is .... that a single man could win or lose so much imaginary money in a single moment, just because enough of us collectively willed it.

It's another example of why I see modern finances, stock markets and ultra wealth as just our modern day religion.

It's like ancient civilizations ... Babylonians, Sumarians, Egyptians ... we look back at their cultures and see them as backwards for believing in sun gods, god kings and divine entitlements

We're doing the same thing, we just call it the 'stock markets', 'investments', 'corporations' ... and it all only exists because enough of us believe in it. And just like the ancient cultures, if enough people stop believing in it .... then it means nothing and it loses all its power.