From: Zero Powers (zero_powers@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 26 2000 - 12:27:25 MST
>From: CurtAdams@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 3/25/00 21:11:18, you wrote:
>
> >Don't get me wrong. I wish there was a bunch more research being done on
> >nano, cryo and immortality. But the only way to get funding for such
> >research is to convince people that there money is better spent there
>than
> >somewhere else. I just think we're going to have a heck of a time
> >convincing people of that as long as there are things to spend money on
>like
> >feeding, healing and improving the standard of living of the 6 billion
> >people we already share this planet with.
>
>I don't think there's any such problem. We spend billions on research for
>diseases like Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, and prostate cancer, where the
>result will only benefit old people in rich countries. Much less gets
>spent on research for 3rd world food production. I don't see why
>attitudes would be substantially different about longevity research, a
>new way of benefitting old people in rich countries.
I was replying to a message which suggested supporting longevity research as
something that would benefit the rich first, then trickle down to mere
mortals later. In other words "Lets fund research that will benefit the
rich because, eventually, you might be able to afford it to." Of course
research that will benefit citizens of rich countries will get funded
because it is primarily those rich countries that are doing the research.
This is different from trying to fund research that will benefit rich
*people* in rich countries.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:39 MST