Sometimes I think I was born too soon. To think the new knowledge we well discover with in the next 100, 200, 1000 years is really exciting.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 20-50 years with all the genetic engineer going on one could live for ever. Of cause as long as you can afford it.
Sometimes I agree with you, but on the other hand, you have to recognize how lucky you are. There is no guarantee that the future will be better than the present, and there are many plausible risks that it could be much worse. For example, highly disruptive consequences of climate change; nuclear war; massively destructive accidents (like the gray goo scenario); and so on.
Whenever I find myself getting wistful about the future portrayed in science fiction, I remind myself that I am better off than all the humans before me since the dawn of our species, and also better off than the vast majority of humans on the planet right now. Future generations may look back at this as a golden age. So enjoy it!
I envision a world where, due to technology and science, everyone stops aging after 25.
A clock will be constantly visible on your forearm and time will be the only commodity in the world, in which you'll get paid and make payments in.
After the age of 25, you'll get 1 to 75 years of "time" deposited in your account. The clock on your arm will decrement by default as time passes, and increase/decrease as you earn/spend.
When your time expires (the clock reaches zero), you die.
Most people will live day-to-day, only having 24 hours of time in any given moment. Others will have millions of years on their clocks.
'In Time' itself could try being a little more original - the main premise probably comes from either a great late-80s short called 'The Price of Life' (http://vimeo.com/16265933) or a 1970s Lee Falk story, 'Time is Money'.
The difference between Time in this scenario and Gold, is that the value of time will be based on artificial scarcity.
The scarcity of Gold on the other hand is very real. Gold is limited and while it is possible to synthesize gold, the cost of doing that is great and does not scale.
Which is why I think the world you mention is impossible: we cannot even stop the piracy of music. Artificial scarcity is not sustainable. Once all the people will be able to live forever, they will live forever. What makes you think these "clocks" will be unbreakable?
And even if the technology will be perfect, do you really want to have on your hands a huge angry mob of people with less than 24 hours to live? Good luck with that ;-)
I'm trying to fill in the gaps in the author's thinking, but I imagine it something along the lines that keeping you "aged" 25 requires resources. So time is sort of a proxy currency for the resources required to keep you alive. If you run out of time you don't have anything to purchase the resources to keep you living.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 20-50 years with all the genetic engineer going on one could live for ever. Of cause as long as you can afford it.