[extropy-chat] Extropian Scorecard

[Spike]

> Damien Broderick
> 
> As usual, I must be missing something here. If `social security' is 
> shorthand for collective funding of pensions for the ill, the 
> incapacitated 
> and those made feeble by old-age, plus collective funding of 
> some or all 
> medical expenses, then `practical immortality' largely does 
> away with the 
> need for such a system. It could increase the need for spending on 
> continuing education, say, assuming any jobs remain for 
> humans, and that 
> any humans remain in the first place. But I can't see why 
> keeping everyone 
> healthy and youthful would `bankrupt the social security 
> system'. On the 
> contrary, I think this is one of the great benefits of any negligible 
> senescence treatment, and a major motive for governments to 
> invest heavily 
> in its development *before* the shit hits the fan.
> 
> Damien Broderick

Ah I am glad we finally reached the point where differences
in basic assumptions can be identified, so that meaningful
dialog can take place.

Social security was originally designed as an old-age
pension, not necessarily for the ill or incapacitated.
One becomes a pensioner at a certain age, absolutely
regardless of one's medical or fiscal condition.  Of 
course thegovennment quickly amassed a great fortune, 
and the temptation to use the fund for general welfare 
was overwhelming.  So the difference in assumptions is
whether the payout is based upon the pay-in, or upon
actual need.

I might agree that if we accomplished practical 
immortality, we might not need the current social 
security system.  But we would still have it.  The 
newly immortal would assume that the US government
owes them a pension forever.  They might be quite 
unwilling to relinquish that entitlement, even if 
they do not *need* the checks.

Altho we are not getting physical immortality, human
lifespans are increasing way faster than the social
security system can sustain.  

We are in a social security trap.

spike