From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 20:52:53 MDT
I am so tired of the debate format, especially with someone like Mike where
I know that it will be completely unproductive. A sample exchange:
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Hal Finney wrote:
> > I'll say it again, we have enormous advantages in the forthcoming dispute.
> > People will always favor life over death.
>
> Then why is it that thirty million babies have been aborted in the US
> since 1972?
This is an example of the gap between us. We are talking about life
enhancing therapies, I express my optimism that people will choose to
support them, and out of nowhere Mike brings in his apparent belief that
abortion is murder! Unbelievable. Even if you have this perspective,
it should be clear that it has nothing to do with the question of whether
people will favor longer lifespans and improved health. How can there be
effective communication with responses like this?
The problem is, I disagree with almost every point Mike has made.
Either he is factually wrong, as in his claim that long life will
bankrupt the government due to loss of revenue from the "death tax"
(which, according to http://www.policyandtaxationgroup.com/repeal.htm,
accounts for less than 1% of government revenues), or he is bringing in
irrelevant points, such as demanding the identity of any laws which have
expanded liberty recently. He claims that schooling is intentionally
held to low quality, ignoring the fact that schools are run by local
school boards which are mostly composed of parents. He claims that
bureaucrats are threatened by increased access to information about
the law, ignoring the massive efforts by the government to put legal
information on the net, such as with the Thomas system.
The whole idea that the government is motivated to keep people dying and
to suppress medical technology is not only paranoid and illogical but
contradicted by recent history. Look at the case of the polio vaccine.
I am old enough to remember standing in the hot Texas sun as a child, part
of a long line leading up to the tent where the vaccinations were given.
The government was working to save lives, not to suppress the technology
and keep it for itself as Mike seems to suggest.
I'm not going to go on. Mike's response is a tissue of knee-jerk anti
government slogans and paranoid conspiracy theories. I expect better on
this list.
Hal
> > I'm not sure exactly which technologies you are referring to, but if
> > you're talking about human genetic and technological augmentation then
> > I don't see your point. What is it about these technologies which is a
> > threat to the power structures? How is that that letting people connect
> > more efficiently to the net, or expand their strength and intelligence,
> > is a danger?
>
> Those that think the poor quality of public school education is an
> accident are similarly deluded in thinking that government is for
> increasing individual liberty. Those that think the government is
> interested in the populace being better educated and better informed
> about the law, the workings of government, about history, and about
> liberty amplifying technologies are kidding themselves.
>
> Name ONE law passed by congress in the past ten years that actually
> increased the average person's liberty by any extent.
>
> >
> > The usual concern is the opposite, that these technologies will be harmful
> > in that they will be more available to the wealthy and powerful since
> > they will probably be expensive initially. The worry is that the poor
> > will be left behind and the existing power structures will become even
> > more entrenched.
>
> The *ignorant* poor will be more entrenched. At no time in history has
> it been easier for a poor person to acquire the tools of upward
> mobility, and this is despite the best efforts of government.
>
> The rapid aquisition of wealth by the intelligent tech savvy will
> compress the three generation effect, where in the past family wealth
> generally never makes it past the third generation. When so much wealth
> is highly dependent upon the skilled technoid to generate it for
> themselves, the wealth acquired by the previous generation pales in
> comparison.
>
> >
> > By this argument, government has a heavy incentive not to outlaw new
> > technologies, but to do everything it can to encourage them. Government
> > functionaries and their wealthy contributors are the ones who will see
> > the greatest benefits.
> >
>
> No, because government functionaries always will have the benefits even
> if the general public is restricted from accessing them. The government
> always exempts itself from it's own laws. Furthermore, the wealth of
> bureaucrats comes from knowing the loopholes in laws and selling that
> knowledge. Their power is perpetuated only so long as the law is written
> so inscrutably that the average individual is unable to comprehend them.
> When the individual on the street has a LawExpert system running on
> their portable, analysing laws they come into contact, the power of the
> bureaucrats is diminished. When the individual has ready access to IQ
> amplification technologies, the power of the bureaucrats is diminished.
> When the individual on the street is practically immortal, they become
> immune to death taxes, further diminishing the power of the bureaucrats.
>
> > > We HAVE to act now. We need to dedicate our time, our money "and our
> > > sacred honor" to this cause. Fence sitters, armchair quarterbacks,
> > > whiners and lollygaggers are a drag on the cause. "Now is the time that
> > > tries men's souls" and all that, and summer soldiers and sunshine
> > > patriots just won't get the job done.
> >
> > I think a good test case is the currently pending legislation to outlaw
> > so-called therapeutic cloning, the Brownback bill. If this passes
> > it will be a sign that our government representatives are willing to
> > restrict research that could save their own lives and it should indeed be
> > a wake-up call to our community. But by the same token, if it fails, as
> > I predict it will, it should be taken as a sign that for all the rhetoric,
> > legislators ultimately will vote to further their own self interest, and
> > that means supporting research that can enhance human lives.
>
> The Senate will reject the GOP version, will write its own. The
> compromise in committee will likely allow therapeutic cloning at
> non-government labs with non-government money. In the end, it is still a
> victory for luddism.
>
> >
> > The "killer app" for genetic technology is not greater intelligence
> > or strength. It is long life. If we can develop a treatment to
> > substantially extend the healthy human lifespan, nothing will stop us.
> > Fukuyama can yammer all he wants about how such a thing would be a
> > tremendous change to the historical view of human nature, and he's
> > right; humans with a 150 year healthy lifespan would be a clean break
> > from the past. But it wouldn't matter. No one would pass this up.
> > Rather than being forbidden, it would be subsidized and made available
> > to everyone, if the technology permitted it (at least in Western countries).
>
> Immortality is the bane of government control. Only the government has
> the power to decide when you can die. You don't, as far as they are
> concerned. If you are immortal, you won't be paying death taxes, and
> this diminishes the revinue generation ability of government. Without
> death taxes in the next several decades (it will kick back in in 2010,
> so you better hurry up and die if you weren't planning on living
> forever), the government will go bankrupt as the baby boomer generation
> retires.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:51 MST