Is being smarter than our ancestors bad?

[David Larsen]

Is being smarter than our ancestors bad?

We all know that there are a million different things that can kill us. Our ancestors probably only ever thought or knew of a few. They saved and lived modestly because they tried to prepare for their golden years.

Now, I am not saying to go out and live and spend like it is your last day.. but taking into consideration that there is no guarantee we will live until tomorrow or beyond, does this influence your decisions on how you live today?

Would it be better to be ignorant and think you are going to live long and healthy?

[Phil Thien]

I get your drift.

When I read your post I'm immediately reminded of the recent news story of the researchers (including at least one at the University of Wisconsin) which genetically altered H5N1 so now ferrets can be carriers, and easily transmit it to humans.

Here, these geniuses:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/755953

[Michael Weber]

We are certainly more knowledgeable and educated. I doubt we're any smarter. We are likely totally ignorant of what it would take to live in past generations. I understand the point your making though. Sometimes Ignorance is bliss. Maybe that's why I'm such a happy guy.

[Bill Edwards(2)]

They saved and lived modestly because they tried to prepare for their golden years.

I don't disagree, but both my grandfathers died at age 57.

If there is an "ignorance" to be had, it's that they never saw it coming.

Today we're told by everybody that eating, drinking, breathing and sex
is going to kill us.

Maybe we'd just be better off with an on/off switch om our hearing.

[Mike Henderson]

Not all our ancestors "saved and lived modestly". There were about the same number of wild people in the past as there are today, and many, many older people were desperately poor. And often they died early because of their lifestyle habits. I lost a number of uncles who died at about age 55, primarily because of excessive alcohol and tobacco use.

At least we now can make an informed choice about our lifestyle. We can choose to live in ways that have been shown to maximize lifespan, if we want to.

Mike

[Moses Yoder]

I don't see much sense in having more than you need. We have an extensive video collection and a subscription to Netflix and go to the local library, but that is about our only entertainment. I live beneath my means because I can have everything I need and still have money left over. If I just squandered that money, I would be known as the fool. If I die and there is money left over, it will either go to my children, my wife, other relatives, or a worthy cause. At any rate, I'm sure it will be put to good use.

[Gary Hodgin]

I'm don't feel too bad about it. We wouldn't be as "smart" as we are if it weren't for our ancestors and our descendants will be smarter than us because of what we do. Knowledge accumulates and the new stuff either replaces or supplements the old.

[David Larsen]

Personally, I value a shop full of paid off tools now vs. a dream that I will complete a shop after I retire to help me enjoy my "golden years".

I don't know what my future holds. To me it seems better to live at a cost neutral rate now rather than living below my means now so that I can retire above my means. I do put enough away to ensure the cost neutral retirement scenario.

[Greg Peterson]

Here is an interesting video clip featuring Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

[Jim Matthews]

I have heard a convincing argument from an anthropologist that stone age people were forced to use a higher portion of their intellect for catalog memories;
what could be eaten, what couldn't and where to find various implements.

Written language was the second disruptive technology, following the needle and thread.