X-Message-Number: 20264
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 05:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Driven FromThePack <>
Subject: Neolibertarian dogma

Anton wrote:

> CryoNet - Mon 7 Oct 2002
>
> Message #20256
> From: "Mark Plus" <>
> Subject: "The future of death"
> Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 13:47:40 -0700

> http://www.btexact.com/ideas/futurology?doc=21053
>
> The future of death
> Biological
> death might still be unpleasant, but it need no
longer be a career
> barrier.

I found the article an interesting summation of the
transhumanist position. However,
I found it disturbing that the author considered the
main problem with death to be
the way it interrupts careers! Perhaps I have
misunderstood, or perhaps my
priorities are different and I do not consider a
career to be the most important thing
in life, or the interruption of a career the reason
why death is so terrible."

Great point!  THis goes right to the heart of the
neolibertarian (as opposed to paleolibertarian)
viewpoint.  Paleos think the USA, Canada, England,
France, et al., should be organized for the benefit,
comfort, well-being, ease, quality of life, etc., of
the citizens.  The neolibertarians think, or at least
their dogma holds, that the western democracies should
be organized for the benefit of investors. I don't
think many neos would come right out and agree with
me,   but that is the end effect of their platform. 

It seems to me that paleolibertarianism was a reaction
to the old-style of investor/robber
baron/industrialist control of the populace, where the
energy and life blood of the citizenry was to a great
extent funneled into the military industrial complexes
and the wars spwaned for the benefit thereof.  That
particular control strategy seems to have morphed into
the, for lack of a better phrase, "globalism"
strategy, where the citizenry are seen as livestock on
the western democracy ranch, as opposed to vehicles
for wars that spawned fortunes made in munitions, etc.
 Livestock that are there for working...at careers.

I think this is relevant here in cryonet b/c
neolibertarianism seems to be a dominant form of
political thought here, but one that, to me, anyways,
seems a dead end.


Anton further wrote:

"Thinking about the importance of a career lead me to
consider the issue of money
and longevity, It is likely that this issue has been
discussed at cryonet before, but I
am just a recent subscriber so I will air my thoughts.
Feel free to direct me to an
archived discussion of this issue if this is passe."


WElcome to cryonet. Actually, your perspective is one
I find refreshing. The extropian list, however, will
more likely want to discuss this issue, as opposed to
cryonetters. The extropians are often cryonicists, and
probably represent a "hard core" neolibertarian
faction of life extensionists.

Anton wrote:

"It seems likely to me that any future people that
benefit from extreme longevity are
going to have to be rich. Like today, longevity
treatment/tech is sure to be
expensive; the cost of cryonics, certain drugs and
medical treatment, even good
food and the other elements that support good health,
will only be available for the
comfortably rich at best and wealthy at worst. Though
I expect treatment/tech to
become cheaper and reach a mass market as it becomes
more dated, I am dubious
that immortality will be available for everyone   or
even many people."


Aspirin pills were once expensive, no doubt. The
future is not a static place in time. Many vital life
extension will no doubt be expensive at first, but as
manufacturing techniques improve and as patents
expire, the costs will plummet.


"Is it likely that a wealthy elite of immortals, all
with a mono-maniacal work-ethic,
political power and tons of excess capital will
maintain their hold on wealth and
power by living longer and longer? Perhaps this could
lead to an enlightened
oligarchy, though this would assume a beneficial
relationship between age, reason
and wisdom (will greater processing power magically
make people more
enlightened? Or more stubborn?). Perhaps instead the
world will be home (or a
launch pad, or a resource) to a technological vanguard
who will leave behind or
exploit the worlds  mortals. Perhaps by then cultures
will have sorted out their
inequalities, but I find this unlikely. Extreme
longevity treatments will probably
happen soon and it seems likely and strange that our
species may succeed in
overcoming the most basic, ancient and constant
problem of death, without
succeeding in solving the younger and more variable
problems of inequality,
poverty and group violence."


Sounds like a good sci-fi novel. However, reality is
often more mundane...


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20264