Life in the Future

What Would You Choose?

To Live or Let Live is set 100 years in the future in a world that has tamed most of the challenges of the early 21st century:

• Crime is minimal.
• Global population is steady and the climate has been tamed.
• Society is stable, mostly egalitarian and cohesive.
• Fuel is clean, plastic waste has been removed from the environment after the discovery of a plastic-eating enzyme, and the world is returning to a more pristine and natural state.
• There’s a Department of Excessive Wealth Management.
• The human lifespan has been extended to 150 years – Life Extension therapy (LE) is available at no cost to everyone in wealthy countries.

Sounds almost perfect, doesn’t it?
But there are costs:

• At a young age, you’re implanted with a chip. It enables you to travel and make purchases, monitors your health and secures your personal devices – as well as keeping a track of you at all times. Don’t worry, this information is kept securely – by the state. So your partner couldn’t use information from your chip to discover, say, that you were having an affair. But the state knows where you are at all times, so if you’re at the scene of a crime, you’d better have your story straight…
• Global treaties mean your government significantly reduces your freedom to do as you please, both with your own body and the environment. Population is managed; LE medication is only available combined with contraceptives.
• While society is democratic, political parties have been banned, and everyone has to do regular, unpaid work in the community (ServeTime). As well as making a contribution to society, this offers you opportunities for close collaboration with people from different backgrounds and gives you insight into what the state and charities do, and how they work.
• Other than the loss of your freedom to profit from trashing the environment, we don’t see a downside to this!
• If you’re lucky enough to be super-rich, you’ll be super-taxed – but the state will give you a say in how your taxes might be spend, although your proposal will be rejected if it doesn’t benefit the community sufficiently.
• In certain instances, you have to give up LE if:
  • You want to have a child.
  • You have a significant “diffability”.
  • You have a reaction to the medication.
  • You’re convicted of a crime (instead of prison, you’ll be sentenced to a time-limited suspension of LE, with home confinement for more serious crimes).
  • If you’re a persistent drug user.

So What Do YOU Think?

• Would the benefits of a chip implant outweigh the loss of your privacy?
• Do we need strong global treaties to protect the environment? And should these include population-control measures?
• Would banning political parties improve, diminish or destroy democracy?
• Do you think forcing citizens to volunteer for good causes could improve society and the individual?
• Should the super-rich be taxed more heavily, or does this discourage success and innovation?
• Pick one: Live to 150 or have a child? (If you want a second child, your partner will have to give up their LE too.)
• Would suspending a criminal’s access to LE be better – for both society and the individual – than putting them in prison?

Please join the discussion and comment below – we’d love to hear what you think about any of these subjects!