>From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
>
>On Saturday, March 25, 2000 8:09 PM Zero Powers zero_powers@hotmail.com
>wrote:> >1. This isn't an either-or proposition. Both "normal" medical
>care
>and
> > >longevity can both be financed.
> >
> > I realize that. I was responding to Natasha who emphasized the need to
> > counter the ubiquitous "deathist" meme. My point was simply that it
>will
>be
> > much easier to get people to support longevity research once it is clear
> > that the environment will be able to support 10 billion people who like
>to
> > make babies but don't like to die.
>
>Outside of advanced nations, I'm not sure that many people care about the
>environment. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it seems a
>peculiarly
>First World concern. Yeah, sure, you can find well off people in the Third
>World worrying about such things, BUT I bet the average person in those
>societies does not care about it.
I don't know that this is true. But even if it is, it is precisely the
folks in the developed world who you will need to convince to support
longevity research funding. Under your hypothesis these are the people who
are most concerned with the sustainability of the environment.
>Now, this might support Zero here, since First Worlders might not want even
>more Third Worlders who are only interested in becoming First Worlders
>quickly and leaving the environment as a luxury for the future.
>
>But however that might be, the truth is the US generates enough food now to
>feed about 5 times its population. If the relation were strictly linear,
>then all we would need to feed a world of 10 billion people is the farmland
>of 8 USAs using current methods. (Remember: most of the US is not farmed
>and not all farmland actually produces. Actual stats are available at
>http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/volume1/us-51/toc97.htm, but I'm
>too tired to look them up tonight.:/) My point being, we don't need a lot
>of research and money to figure out what works. We don't even that much to
>put it into practice. In fact, probably the simplest way to do so would be
>to cut off foreign aid packages to all nations, especially Third World
>ones.
>This would, at the very least, stop funding local elites that typically put
>ineffective social and economic policies into play, often for their benefit
>at their peoples' expense -- not to mention it helps to prop up unpopular
>and tyrannical regimes.
I'm not so sure that this would work. Although since it has not been tried,
and since everything that *has* been tried has failed, it may well be worth
a try. I believe the real problem is with food distribution, rather than
food production. I have not done the research, but the anecdotal stories of
silos full of grain in the midwestern US being hoarded and going rotten,
rather than being efficienly and equitably distributed seem to support this.
> > It is hard to convince people that
> > indefinite life spans won't presently sap our environmental and
>agricultural
> > resources when people now typically only live less than 80 years and yet
>a
> > good percentage of us are living in poverty and starving.
>
>I agree there will be a problem convincing the average person in the First
>World, but you don't need to do so. All one has to do is get longevity
>research on a firmer footing and screw what the man or woman in the street
>thinks.
Problem is you will not likely get it done without the approval of the
person in the street. The bulk of research in this country is funded by the
government. The people who decide what gets funded are ultimately beholden
to congressional constituents, the people in the street. I realize that
most research projects are off the radar of the general public, but funding
for immortality research would not stay of the radar for long, thanks to the
like of folks like Bill Joy. Once you get the person in the street
complaining loud enough that the research is impractical and being funded
instead of things like cancer and AIDS, longevity funding is going to be in
trouble.
>Get it done, then enough people will be around to solve these
>problems. Notably, corpses don't tend to do a lot of creative/productive
>work -- at least, last time I checked.:)
Well, once you "get it done" there is no need to research it anymore, is
there?
> > >2. The amount of money needed to make decent progress towards longevity
> > >- to take the level you quoted, $100 million - would have very little
> > >practical impact on supplying "normal" medical care.
> >
> > I question whether $100 million would have very much impact on longevity
> > research. My guess is that there is currently at least that much being
> > spent right now on aging research and other research that will be of
>value
> > to life extensionists. And sure $100 million would not end hunger, but
>you
> > could damn sure build a lot of irrigation with it.
>
>I doubt that much is being spent on longevity research -- not when cryonics
>organizations can hardly fund thier research, not when there exist only a
>handful of reputable clinics and foundations working on chemical life
>extension. Perhaps some of the big drug companies are investigating this
>stuff, but I see most of the real work being done by universities and very
>limited in scope. (Doug! Prove me wrong! Please prove me wrong! I don't
>want to be right here.:)
Well when you include the myriad areas that will directly or indirectly
impact longevity (immunology, nutrition, genetics, nanotech, aging, etc.)
I'm sure the figure well exceeds $100 million annually.
> > 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.
>
>Here I disagree with Zero. I don't the problem exists as he states it.
>Most people do not spend that way. They don't think, "I've got to spend
>everything I have above bare necessity on help the Joneses have as much as
>I
>do." These Establishment Liberal pieties sound good in campaign speeches
>or
>church sermons (for some, not for me), but most people never put them into
>practice (and it's probably a good thing they don't; what money is sent to
>help other societies often does more harm than good and a lot of it gets
>consumed by do nothing bureaucrats*).
I agree that most people (including me) aren't as charitable as they should
be. However, wanting to improve the standard of living of people today as
opposed to extending the life spans of those in the future is really a
rather selfish (albeit possibly misguided) outlook. Most people alive today
probably figure that they, personally, will benefit more from environmental
and traditional healthcare spending than they will from research geared
toward extending human life span. And again it goes back to who wants to
live in a world where the exponential population growth rate would explode
where we do not have the technological, social or moral resources to
adequately care for everyone who is already here? These are not charitable
concerns. Nobody wants to live in a Soylent Green world, even if they would
be able to live there forever.
-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 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:27 MDT