[ExI] Yet another health care debate.
phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu
Wed Sep 24 14:17:57 UTC 2008
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 08:20:20PM -0700, sjatkins wrote:
> realistically we are not now at this moment in a position to take care
> of even the most basic of needs of every person on the planet.
Sure we are. We already grow enough food to feed everyone; estimated
costs of clean water supplies for everyone aren't that high -- WaterAid
says $10 billion a year to halve the number of people without access to
There's your most basic needs right there.
> Realistically in this comparative world of actual scarcity there must be
> some concentrations of what from some perspectives may seem unfair
> quantities of wealth for much progress at all to occur. Note also that
"some concentration" is rather vague, even if true.
> my idealistic perspective above in no way requires that wealth be more
> evenly distributed.
Hard to be a germinating godseed when you can't afford food and water.
> wealth of all us. In practice there are many points of diminishing
> returns and the need to chose where the ROI is highest in the face of
> less than adequate time and resources. We can all work diligently
> within our relative god-realm to get to a place of such abundance that
> much more than what we have is available to all.
Highest marginal return is probably with those who have the least.
Think: only 1/6 of the world is "First World". The research population
could be at least 6x bigger than it is. 6x faster progress in science
and technology, toward that Singularity you want.
-xx- Damien X-)
More information about the extropy-chat