[extropy-chat] Christopher Reeve Foundation: Request

[David Lubkin]

At 11:51 AM 3/20/2004 +1100, Brett Paatsch wrote:

>a vote for Bush is a vote for going slower on embryonic stem cell 
>research. There should be absolutely no illusions about that.

I want to assume that what you are saying is true, and go on from there.

In 1980, I had a friend who was convinced the country would be destroyed if 
Reagan won the election.

It's 24 years later. There is a wide spectrum of opinion on the merits of 
his presidency. But we're still here. Whatever you might say about Ed Meese 
or James Watts or Reaganomics, we didn't have a nuclear war, the Warsaw 
Pact is gone, and life rolled on.

I've been trying to convince the people in my life that this year's 
election is different. It is less important whether someone's job moves to 
India or it is harder to get an abortion than whether a cargo container in 
Boston Harbor has a 100 KT nuclear device. I'm not saying who one should 
vote for, just that it's essential to focus on the right issues.

They (some of them, anyway) can appreciate the desirability of avoiding a 
bio or nuclear attack.

The question I wish to raise is a variant on past threads. What could Bush 
or Kerry reasonably be predicted to do in our realm of extropian topics 
(such as Brett's example) that would have a greater likely effect for 
better or ill -- on sentient life, on the US, on us personally -- than 
preventing a large WMD attack?

What are the most important of these that Bush and Kerry differ on? Does 
this add up to a clear electoral choice?

And a related question -- given these critical matters and the differences 
between Bush and Democrat or Kerry and Republican, is the future better 
served now, in the decisions being made in the next four years, by a 
divided government or by the party that takes the White House also 
controlling Congress?


-- David Lubkin.