[ExI] Transhumanism and Politics

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 22, 2008, at 7:18 PM, spike wrote:

>
>> Damien Broderick
> ...
>>
>> At 07:16 AM 1/22/2008 -0800, Spike wrote:
>>
>>> Life extention technology must be simply a market commodity,
>> otherwise
>>> they will never happen.  Reason: there is no one to pay for it.
>>
>> What a strange claim! There is no other threat menacing absolutely
>> *everyone* as brutally and terrifyingly as aging and death...
>
> Agreed, but...
>
>> If the lunar and space probes programs and weather
>> forecasting could be paid for from the common purse...
>> Damien Broderick
>
>
> My claim is that the common purse will not, and will never pay for  
> life
> extension technologies.  In its present form, the common purse is  
> motivated
> to recycle us.

What are you calling "common purse", government (that is tax- 
generated) funds?  If so then I partially agree.  But I wonder if even  
as stupid an entity as government can long ignore the simple  
mathematics that hundreds of millions of boomers can either drain the  
entire system dry as the become more, well, decrepit, or they can  
generate plenty of tax income (loot) for far longer if we develop  
affective anti-aging treatments as quickly as possible.   But  
governments seem to be inherently incapable of doing mathematics.     
Of course it might consider another option of so screwing up if not  
crashing the system that boomers die off rather quickly.    But that  
would be not only evil but very short sighted as adult workers with  
extended "primes" generate a lot more tax loot than youngsters.

>  It perceives itself as adversely impacted by life extention.
> I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the common purse goes back in the  
> opposite
> direction, by eventually reducing the taxes on a known common killer
> tobacco.
>

I don't see the logic.


> No wait, never mind.  The common purse never rolls back taxes.
>

Well, not overall but specific taxes are removed or rolled back or  
loop-holed to distract us while they increase or add others.


> The government does not want us to live a long time after we become  
> eligible
> for social security.
>

Social security?  Everyone knows if isn't going to pay anything for  
much longer in any case.    But if you could make anti-aging  
significantly real you would have a strong case for moving the  
eligibility age up  rather steeply.  That isn't the big worry.  It is  
all of that huge medical debt.

- samantha