[ExI] Economics of SENS

samantha sjatkins at mac.com
Thu Jun 19 08:45:11 UTC 2008

Aleksei Riikonen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:58 PM, The Avantguardian
> <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> A question entered my mind today: With rising medical costs and an ever
>> increasing population of elderly forced to retire at age 65 just when they
>> start needing the medical care the most, would the added productivity of SENS
>> and the elimination of the medical costs associated with aging simply by
>> preventing it not be more cost effective for individuals, insurance companies,
>> and society as a whole in the long run? I don't have any numbers but I suspect
>> that government/private investment in SENS could conceivably pay for itself in
>> the span of several decades. I mean why let a productive tax-payer, consumer,
>> or policy holder steadily become a burden on society by letting him get old
>> when it is preventable? Any thoughts? This might be topic that Robin Hanson and
>> Aubrey de Grey could address more effectively than I for obvious reasons.
> One thing to remember is that even if people don't get old, many/most
> will still want to retire once they have enough money in the bank.

Retiring as an option or in order to work on things of your own desire 
with enough in the bank is vastly different than retiring because you 
are too decrepit and having not nearly enough to not need the government 
> Anyway, I wouldn't think too much about the economics of a situation
> where the workforce consists of immortal humans. I doubt that will
> happen sooner, or last for long before we have AIs that do all jobs
> better than baseline-humans.
Not even necessarily immortal at first but simply able and willing to 
continue work.    In the short term we are running out of skilled people 
as the boomers start retiring in many areas. 

- s

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list