[ExI] Economics of SENS
benboc at lineone.net
Fri Jun 20 07:25:28 UTC 2008
The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> said:
>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
>and the elimination of the medical costs associated with aging simply by
>preventing it not be more cost effective for individuals, insurance
>and society as a whole in the long run? I don't have any numbers but I
>that government/private investment in SENS could conceivably pay for
>the span of several decades. I mean why let a productive tax-payer,
>or policy holder steadily become a burden on society by letting him
>when it is preventable? Any thoughts?
Seems obvious enough.
But only if you actually believe it's possible. And how many people do?
How many governments do?
And even then, if you do convince people it's possible, usually the
first thing they do is think up reasons why it would be a terrible idea.
Mostly silly reasons, yes, but that's not the point.
Don't underestimate how deeply 'deathism' is entrenched in human psychology.
Finally, if you did manage to convince a government that it's possible,
what do you think that govt. would do? Given that the main function of
govt's is to forcibly (or financially) stop people from doing things?
Private investment, sure, but please, please, leave the guvmint out of
it. Look at what the American govt. has done for stem-cell research. And
can you imagine a NASA-style organisation for life-extension? Without
the hairs on the back of your neck rising up?
More information about the extropy-chat