X-Message-Number: 28042
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: economics
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:18:53 +0100

Some comments from today's digest. I have left out attribution as it is so
easy to get it wrong.

Generally I think this idea there is some obviously better way of running
the world that is being suppressed as flawed as the idea of commercial or
professional interest suppressing some invention that is not to their
liking. A persistent rumour is of devices, such as the Joe Cell that enable
cars to run without fuel or by using water as fuel, being suppressed by oil
companies. The fact remains if it was possible to make cars use water as
fuel people would do it. An example that proves the point the other way was
the widespread and almost immediate introduction of helicobacter pylori
antibiotic treatment for stomach disorders once it was discovered. There was
no or little backlash from those whose jobs were displaced.

Dictatorships and democratic socialism of various sorts have been tried,
using both religion based patriotism and science based humanism as
associated memes. It has not been as successful as its proponents thought it
might. No doubt there does exist some better way, it is just that no one
bright enough has thought of it. If they did, then it would eventually
supplant the others simply because it is better.

> > I do wonder whether commercial capitalism is the best possible method of
> > setting the sequence of scientific research.
>
> What kind of commercial capitalism? Within what kind of political
> system and governed how?

The sort of commerical capitalism that exists at present, and anyone who
answers could describe the political system they think would do a better
job.

> > For example, is it better to
> > work on going to Mars as soon as possible or leave it a while for a
better
> > technological infrastructure to develop so it can be done more safely
and
> > cheaply?
>
> That would depend on what "as soon as possible" might involve. In any
> case, this seems to be a false dichotomy - working on getting to Mars
> should develop the tech infrastructure quicker than just "leaving it a
> while" would.

If something is to be done as quickly as possible then clearly it needs to
be a focussed effort. But I don't see the need to rush to Mars. It will take
a very long time to get it terraformed, and in any case even though it is
likely to be a dead world it may never be considered politically correct to
alter other worlds to suit humans. I don't know what the terraforming time
scales are, but I would have guess hundreds or even thousands of years. In
which case whether the job is started now or a few hundred years time is
going to make no difference at all to people who do not attempt to achieve
an indefinite lifespan - ie the majority of the world's population and
virtually all the people alive today who would be paying for this Mars
project.

> > Is it better to work on medical treatments that are so complex that
> > they can only benefit a few people (even if given free by the government
to
> > people selected at random) at the expense of treatments that can benefit
> > large numbers of people?
>
> Again, another false dichotomy. It would be better to give more money
> to both kinds of research and treatment, rather than say, blow it all
> on an ideological war in the Middle East.

The question assumes a limited budget. Whatever the scenario, the budget for
health care (and anything else, even wars) is not infinite. Therefore the
question remains.

> To be fair, cryonics also involves a certain amount of faith
> equivalent to religious faith. We are all in the position of hoping
> for medical and social advance which will enable our revival from
> cryopreservation. We cannot be sure that such a future will manifest,

quite so, therefore cryonics is not a "faith" but a "hope". A schoolchild's
joke definition of faith is "beleiving something to be true that you know
cannot be true."

> In the drug discovery area this has had bad effects. Most new drugs
> are no better than old ones, but are promoted because companies can
> make money on them due to intellectual property laws. In some cases,
> university researchers have been run out of their jobs, because they
> released unfavorable results on new drugs. Drug companies have also
> withheld negative results from there own studies due to commercial
> interests.
>

can anyone think of a better way to fund drug research other than the
present method or by using committees? Presumably there was drug research in
the USSR and it worked differently to that in the West. Did it produce
better results than the West at that time?

*****

Various people made comments about life expectancy. Someone mentioned that
life expectancy from birth has benefited from social health programs that
have reduced infant and child mortality by substantial amounts.

It is probably better for cryonet purposes to look at changes in mortality
for those that have reached higher ages, such as 40, 50 or even 60.

*****

Wal Mart or small shops?

On the basis that people can "vote with their currency", WM wins the
election. In the UK, out of town shopping wins also on the grounds of
comvenience - you can park outside, and many stores run buses for those
without cars. People vote with their currency, yet there is a vociferous
minority who think it is better to visit congested town centres with
inadequate and expensive parking, and public transport which by its very
nature isn't going to suit everyone. Instead of alowing people to vote with
their currency, these people want to use force to make the public go back to
town centres. (eg taxing companies out of business who provide car parks for
their customers)


*****

> professionals working in offices have a high life expectancy, while
> asbestos and coal miners do not.

Yet there are howls of anguish when a mine is closed.

*****

There was a question a few days ago along the lines of "If a sucessful
entrapreneur were to sell his business and give the proceeds to poor people,
how would his sucessor be selected? Would this not produce another person
who would be urged to do the same until there was no one to run the
business." Something similar was tried in African country when all the land
owners were thrown out and a once prosperous country was reduced to getting
food aid because there was no capable of managing the land who was also
deemed to be politically correct.

It would be interesting to read of some alternative system of woning
businesses and land that would actually work does exist. I suspect that if
it did, some country would already be using it and a a shining example to
every other.

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28042