X-Message-Number: 24382
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 01:33:29 -0700
From: James Swayze <>
Subject: My reply to the AARP article's author via their forum

Why begin an article with the promise of extended youth then revert to 
speculation, false speculation at that, about problems stemming from too 
many old and frail folks. Umm, if they are kept youthful how do they 
become frail simply be means of having ticked off a certain greater 
number of years?

The author totally misses the obvious. If people can stay more healthy 
for longer they will have the time to work toward smarter economical use 
of their time and money and thus reach a point where work is not 
necessary unless continued enjoyment is derived from it.

What should also be obvious is the effect on the economies of nations 
when work forces are conserved and retirement made totally optional. 
What cost of healthcare for the feeble? People will afford their own 
maintenance care by working for it or paying out of investment. Gone 
will be the welfare state and the need of social security and medicare. 
Even I, a quadriplegic, may look forward to cures that will return me to 
productive life and give me more time to make up for years of 
interminably desolate downtime.

The possibility to also cure other ills as well as aging should be 
equally as obvious. If technologies can maintain homeostasis then they 
can also cure long incurable diseases and injuries.

Where is the downside of a world of healthy happy lively physically 
25-ish human beings that have finally achieved for themselves the 
fulfillment of humanity's oldest and dearest dream?

Overpopulation? Not likely, technological advances to ameliorate 
overcrowding even help colonize nearby worlds are outpacing  the rate of 
population growth and in fact developed nations are already in fear of 
not having enough new young to leach off of for the care of the oldsters 
now predicted under the old model. Seems that healthy-youthful extreme 
longevity is the cure for this social ill as well.

Loss of meaning of life? Not likely. The meaning of life IS life. If you 
like taking that next breath you'll like it just as well in a few 
minutes from now and so on. Furthermore, the more answer we get to 
questions we ask about life and the universe the more questions appear 
begging answers. There seems no end in sight of things to keep people 
involved in life and interested in it and in staying so.

Got another objection or possible downside? Bring it on. Come to 
www.imminst.org and debate the hopeful physically immortal there.

James Swayze AKA FutureQ

-- 
Membership in order of joining:
Cryonics Institute of Michigan	http://www.cryonics.org
The Immortalist Society		http://www.cryonics.org/info.html
The Society for Venturism	http://www.venturist.org
Immortality Institute		http://www.imminst.org
Methuselah Foundation		http://www.methuselahfoundation.org
Methuselah Mouse Prize		http://www.methuselahmouse.org
[Give $$$ for life!]
World Transhumanist Assoc.	http://www.transhumanism.org/

MY WEBSITE: http://www.davidpascal.com/swayze/

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24382