[ExI] Transhumanism and Politics

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 23, 2008, at 1:55 AM, BillK wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2008 4:38 AM, spike wrote:
>> Ja.  We don't have that in the states.  Social security payments  
>> not only
>> are not means tested, it is illegal to change the rules to make it  
>> so.  It
>> isn't a need-based safety net, but rather a forced pension fund.
>>

Some pension fund.  The money is taken from me, largely squandered,  
and some working sap (or several) have to make up the difference.  I  
get no interest on the money forcefully "saved" from/for me.   And now  
on top of this utterly contemptible situation you want to say that if  
I somehow managed to not be totally impoverished at retirement I  
deserve none of the money taken from me and my employers for over four  
decades of toil and so thoroughly squandered that only pennies on the  
dollar remain?     Are you really saying that?

Now, I would be happy to give up any claim on social security right  
this second if the government would stop extracting it from my money  
immediately.     Otherwise, forget it.     They rob me quite enough to  
pay total strangers or accomplish all kinds of nefarious nonsense all  
over the world without allowing them to rob me more "for me" and then  
give me not one cent if they failed to bleed me dry.


>> Some governments might pay for some life extension technologies,  
>> but the US
>> will not.  The individual is on her own here.
>>
>

Governments don't have any money except what they print out of thin  
air or take out of your pocket.   And they waste the majority of  
that.   I wish I was truly on my own here without hands in my purse or  
the value of what is in my purse being decreased endlessly.   That  
would be much better than what exists anywhere on earth.

>
> The great majority of medical expenditure in first world countries is
> in fighting the battle of the last five years of life.  Countries who
> have a national health service, like Europe and Australia will welcome
> life extension if it involves a small one-off payment or small ongoing
> costs.  (They might not be so keen if the costs are horrendous and
> ongoing).

Are you sure?  I am not.

>
>
> The basic problem with the US is that medical care there has a large
> profit element and companies will be reluctant to remove their biggest
> revenue (profit) source. Their only alternative will be to make the
> charges for life extension treatments high enough to compensate for
> their loss of profit elsewhere.
>

If there is an effective treatment for aging and it naturally has  
price X,  and there is not artificial coercion, the price will drop to  
close to X sooner or later.  The old business models will have no  
choice but to be dropped as the profit goes out of them.   They are  
only hugely profitable now because people have no other way to extend  
their lives.    When there is an alternative the profitability of  
these areas will deteriorate.  Money will move elsewhere.    I don't  
believe the AMA would stand in the way of such techniques or could  
successfully do so for long.


> Nothing personal, it's just business.
>

It is not just business to make stuff up to make more money even if  
there is a vastly more palatable different market that could be served  
and that will pay quite well.