[extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment

[Bret Kulakovich]

well, not if it illustrates that the chain of expense doesn't/ 
shouldn't fall back onto the same group supporting the retirees. Rob  
got it.

Rik and Mike both continued in the notion that this system would  
provide a choice to those about to retire - but what choice do those  
have that are supporting the system? If a discovery is made this  
year, and this system implemented next - would you want _your taxes_  
paying for the rejuvenation of the elderly? If they are  
'contributing' - then this is a problem indeed, because they should  
and could provide this themselves. And how could we guarantee that if  
we were doing this in 2006, that I would still 'get my social  
security' in 30 years and be rejuvenated as well?

As for my franchise quip - it's one of Heinlein's ideas, and if  
anyone wrote a lot about longevity and rejuvenation processes, it was  
RAH.

Sorry to disturb you I guess!


]3



On Aug 22, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Thanks for the empty frivolous response.
>
> -s
>
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 11:14 AM, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I'll see your 'longevity or social security/pension' and raise you  
>> 'longevity only if you contribute to the GNP and society'.
>>
>> This is right up there with 2 years military service buys you  
>> voting franchise and full US citizenship, 4 years for foreign born.
>>
>> ]=)
>>
>>
>>
>> ]3ret
>>
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 21, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The future financial problems of social security, medicare and
>>>>>> medicaid, are all because people are living longer, increasing  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> years they receive benefits by 2-3 times.
>>>>>> I expect that true longevity treatment technology will be held in
>>>>>> limbo
>>>>>> by the FDA and other governments health ministries until after  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> baby boom is mostly dead and buried.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about free longevity treatment for the old, but only
>>>>> for the people who haven't gone into retirement yet?
>>>>> You get to choose between longevity and retirement...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why this distinction?  Many "retired" people are only retired from
>>>> needing a paycheck.  They are active on their own projects.   
>>>> Even if
>>>> they are not so active many are not active because their bodies  
>>>> don't
>>>> easily support them being more active.  Assuming longevity includes
>>>> some degree of rejuvenation, why should it be denied to those whir
>>>> physically most need it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The distinction is because the retirement system is not set up to  
>>> deal
>>> with people living unusually long into retirement. It is broken  
>>> right
>>> now because too many people are living longer than the system  
>>> intended
>>> or expected. It is not structured to vary the retirement age with
>>> average life expectancy. Riks proposal is to give potential retirees
>>> the choice: accept Social Security benefits or longevity  
>>> benefits, not
>>> both. This is a good idea, IMHO, but ideally I'd rather up the
>>> retirement age immediately (or over a decade) to 70-75, then let it
>>> float with the life expectancy. This was attempted partly in the  
>>> 90's,
>>> when it was upped to 67.
>>>
>>> Under a floating retirement age scenario, as more people take  
>>> longevity
>>> treatment, life expectancy goes up, and with it the retirement  
>>> age, so
>>> you have to take longevity treatments to collect on your social
>>> security. The result of this would be that the luddites work  
>>> themselves
>>> to their graves and those with or who accept pro-longevity POVs
>>> survive. This will result in a much more extropic world without
>>> coersion.
>>>
>>> If such a system is enacted, it will be interesting to see the  
>>> sort of
>>> rationalizations that some luddites will make to justify accepting
>>> longevity treatment so that they can 'take the fight for primitivism
>>> into the future', to the exclusion of others.... ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Lorrey
>>> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
>>> Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
>>> http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
>>> Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>