The same advice I've told people my whole life:

Work on your neuroplasticity, not your knowledge. What you know will become less and less important as technology evolves. How fast you learn to adapt to new circumstances is always far more important than what you think is a stable income or job now.

Luck doesn't exist. I chose to incarnate now. Right before Gameboy and during the same period when simple computers lead to superintelligence. Statistically speaking, I see no other explanation as plausible as having chosen to be born now. The probability of getting lucky is just too low.

I mean, block universe. All time exists simultaneously. What will be and has been and is are all simultaneous.

AI probably eventually solves aging and aging related symptoms like arthritis, inflammation, chronic pain, dementia and dying. Why retire? If we make it far enough to see age-reversing medication available on the market we'll probably live long enough to one day live indefinitely.

If you don't live that long, who cares? Reincarnate after the shitty part is over and you'll live to see everything cool about the future and then some.

I'll live out the rest of my life reminding people daily about the horrible construct of greed and wanton destruction called Capitalism so that no one ever makes that stupid fucking mistake ever again.

I'll literally reference the complicit governments responsible as a Holocaust survivor refers to the German Nazi Regime.

The point of the exercise is you don't change anything every time. It's the same life for infinity.

The philosophical equivalent of "well, that's just your opinion, man."

I assume this is the truth. The reality of my life. Every day I think about this.

Oddly enough, the longer I live the more I remember about my life to be and to come.

I think free will isn't real. Therefore, it was inevitable that I think that.

I know. I'm being pessimistic so I don't get my hopes up and end up disappointed if I die at 80 just before the genetic edit that makes us immortal happens.

Just long enough from today that only people under age 5 will probably ever benefit from them.

Universally mandating peace sounds like a recipe for failure.

The core problem with world peace is that every culture is different and disagrees on what is ethically correct. The drinking age is different everywhere.

Trying to generalize universal rules over everyone everywhere seems like a waste of time.

Use technology to improve quality of living and access to basic rights (food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc.) and see how quickly crime rates drop. Employing a universal law to control everyone in a certain direction while still allowing people to be homeless will never work or change anything.

I love landfills. I should work hard to earn the money to lease a Tesla for $250 a month on that new plan so I can utilize Auto-Driving right into a tree at 80 MPH. If I live to tell the tale, at least I'll get another one for free.

Thanks for making me realize where the "don't get updates on this" button is. Reddit rules.

$250 a month is still not affordable enough to make a big impact. The Teslas they sell at this price will break down and need expensive repairs like any other car. It isn't like they feature modular batteries. Once it no longer charges it ends up in a scrap heap. Self-driving just resulted in a recall. More drivers in Teslas just means more garbage to throw away in the near future.

I don't want more built-to-break EVs in a scrap yard somewhere. They're built as tough as Hot Wheels. No wonder they're so cheap. Electric cars won't be effective for mass production until the parts they're comprised of are as modular as AA batteries.

Almost 10% of the population of the First World could afford to spend their excess income to invest in a home-bot within the next decade, assuming wages continue to stagnate and nothing about the economy changes to accommodate the working class.

I think El-P made a song about this one...

I really hope clinical trials are finished within the next 20 years. This would make living long enough to see the advent of age-reversing gene therapy a possibility for more people.

The question and how it's raised is like 100 red flags in the first place.

The fact that we have to specify "for those who earn decent" is indicative of a future society that still finds a way to omit the poor from leading respectable lives. In other words, the exact same as present day America.

It'll suck if we still reject part of our populace from receiving care, goods and services even after AI are widely available and the majority of diseases have been eradicated. Just the way this question had to be phrased to remain realistic is telltale of our failure as a society.

Ideally, it'll be great for everyone who lives here or wants to live here. Ideally, classist divisions of power based on wealth will no longer exists. Ideally, "liberty and justice FOR ALL" will be a reality rather than just a fleeting promise. I want to believe that's possible but it's highly unlikely. Especially with have and have-not attitudes persisting long after Capitalism and false scarcity no longer exist.

150 years, minimum.

Mostly laws blocking adequate research holding the field back. Figuring out genetic manipulation would yield quicker results but costs too many lives.