X-Message-Number: 2600
From:  (David Stodolsky)
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 16:26:18 +0100 (MET)

> From:  (Ben Best)
> Date: 	Fri, 11 Feb 1994 03:52:00 -0500

>   Although I rarely admit it in public, self-interest is my primary
>reason for not giving too much weight to potential negative social
>consequences of life extension -- including pollution and

Pollution and overpopulation are by no means obvious consequences of life 
And it is certainly is a blunder to concede that they are, if it is not true.
Most people have accepted the these ideas as a result of pseudoscientific
"Club of Rome" type of propaganda, which is based upon "lifeboat" ethics.
This the idea that resources are limited and overpopulated countries,
like India, are best "dumped over the side" so the rest of us can
live. The effect of this is to *produce* overpopulation, because people 
must have surviving children to support them in their old age. 
This assumes that economic resources are withheld, 
making any other kind of social security in old age impossible. 

These theories never consider people a resource, but merely producers of 

children and trash. Liberal social theories tend to do a better job in this 
Notice, I am talking here of ethical foundations, not about how they
become expressed politically.

The kind of social analysis put forward here is certainly needed.
Let's try to bring some more science into it.

David S. Stodolsky, PhD         Internet: 
Peder Lykkes Vej 8, 4 tv.                        : 
DK-2300 Copenhagen S                           Tel.: + 45 32 97 66 74
Denmark                                 Voice + Fax: + 45 31 59 76 44

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2600