X-Message-Number: 28048
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: economics for cryonics
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:32:12 +0100

> > 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.
>
> Intellectual rights and copyright laws do just that - as one example.

agreed, but they apply only for a limited time. They make money for lawyers
at the price of slowing progress, but they don't stop it. That would be to
lawyers'
detriment as well. In any case, if an invention is novel, by definition no
one else has invented and patented the same thing before. The inventor has
the choice as to whether to sell it to someone who will suppress it or to
develop the invention.

> what do you think Bush's
> sex ed. policies are if not a suppression of better reproductive
> technology (contraception, abortion, and ultimately stem-cell
> research).

They cannot work, unless Bush was the Leader of the entire world. (People
can go abroad for an abortion, or to do stem-cell research.)

> Diesel fuel injected cars can run on vegetable oil - and people
> buy cooking oil for that reason (which is why sales have gone up -
> Google it).
>
> The problem is that not enough people know about it.

It is fairly well known here - even been on the local radio. You still have
to buy some diesel oil, though. More on
http://www.ravenfamily.org/andyg/vegoil.htm Governments who tax it but still
claim to care about the environment do have some explaining to do, though.

> ...  paper by cryonicist Dr Harris who points
> out that something as crucial as anaesthetic can take centuries to be
> accepted. See Harris, Steven B. (1992). "The Society for the Recovery
> of Persons Apparently Dead" in Skeptic vol. 1, no. 2, Summer 1992, pp.
> 24-31 (also online). Once again, this flies in the face of your views
> on this issue.

Find the article on
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=Print&client=printer&f=69&t=863

Nothing is sure and fast when trying to see how history "works". The
motivations of the anti-anaesthetic brigade would be more clearly understood
and totally unacceptable in the present time.

> Bascially, there is no rationale to whether the best ideas, tech., or
> organisations float to the top - what determines this is power
> struggle and the vagaries of human psychology.

I doubt that it is totally random -- it may well be that the process is not
understood. People tend to call processes that cannot be defined
mathematically "random". All this means is that the maths haven't been
worked out yet.

> Dictatorship is still being tried - like in the US, where Bush has
> clearly stated that he considers himself above the law (as Commander
> in Chief), hence the wire-tapping and torture.

He is not in power for the rest of his life. The US system as I understand
it limits the term that any one individual can be leader (President)

> > using both religion based patriotism and science based humanism as
> > associated memes.

Maybe it would have been better to write "[Socialism] using both religion
based patriotism and science based humanism **to support it** ". Both were
tried last century and both failed to provide their citizens with the
utopias their proponents obviously thought they would.

> Thinking isn't the problem, history is full of utopian ideas - putting
> them into action is the problem.

Agreed - applies also to technologies and inventions, and even plot ideas
for
films or novels.

The two main political parties in the UK seem to be struggling to provide
something different for the electorate. Their policies are now very much
governed by external circumstances and realities of economics. I would
imagine that the same applies in the USA

>
> > If they did, then it would eventually
> > supplant the others simply because it is better.
>
> Again, too simplistic.

... from the point of view of timescale

> Consider a political genius who had no political contacts, no money,
> poor health, and - after a period of activism - made some powerful
> enemies. Do you think that his "memes" would win out of the current
> system because the "meme" was a better (e.g. just, good) organising
> principle for human existence?

"just" and "good" are less meaningful than "effective". Consider a divorce.
The person who loses money feels the settlement is unjust ("why didn't I
just go and commit a crime that risks the same punishment") whereas the
person
who receives it feels it is justice. ("the right payment for all the time I
spent with him/her"). "effective" on the other hand would mean that both
people continue to function as good citizens and not be a burden on the
state -- neither indeed turning to vagrancy or crime. It is the latter the
legislature sets out to achieve, whatever posturing goes on about justice
and fairness.

Under the circumstances of the impoverished philosophical genius, the ideas
he originated may well not be attached to his name, but eventually someone
else
would reach the same conclusion, because they would have the same inputs of
ideas. It is the idea, not the person, that matters.

FM radio, for example, was an obvious idea once the shortcomings of AM radio
were becoming clear, and several patents were applied for by different
people at roughly the same time. Armstrong happened to be the lucky winner,
but Reeves, the inventor of PCM, was amongst those filing FM patents.
Likewise PCM was also invented by other independent thinkers whose patents
were filed too late.

> Some measure of progress can be achieved at great human &
> environmental cost (Stalin knew this). Do we still have to do this?
> This is essentially the question I put to John K Clark, whose answer
> appears to be yes - and perhaps he is even right - there is no-way to
> make the world fair, no level-playing field, no measure or guide for
> absolute justice, no way to check the natural and normal wish to
> expand and grow - which is always at the cost of some other life.
> That doesn't mean I like it though, and it doesn't mean we could do
better.

It seems from this discussion that this is such a chaotic subject it is
highly unlikely that we are doing the very best we can. However there may be
an asymptote that can only be approached. (like absolute zero of
temperature)

> The question is about how we apportion our resources - to who and to what
end?
>
> Obviously cryonics isn't going to be for everyone, even if they wanted
> it.

According to the New Scientist poll, just under 30% of those polled said
that they would go for it if it was free.

> Amongst cryonicists there are not enough resources for even just 1
> million people.

Only if it was given away, surely. If there was a million self funding
people then there would be sufficient resources for that many.

If those too old and/or enfeebled to have any more healthy life were allowed
to chose cryonics before their natural death then the savings of terminal
care costs could pay for it. But it would be a horrible balancing act. If
the authorities made a "profit" by using cryonics instead of terminal care,
(as is likely) there would be much anguish. If cryonics would still be more
expensive, then there would be more anguish, of a different sort.

> This does not mean we shouldn't support cryonics, but
> it does mean that we need to look beyond our hopes for the future to
> the actual conditions of life today.

Quite so, we have to get there from here occupying all the intervening
points in time, which is the reason why discussing these points is relevant
to CryoNet. If we had a physics based or Wellsian form of time travel, then
it would matter less. But even then  there would still have to be a future
to go to, of course.

> We are not going to have a stable future unless as many people as
> possible have the basics - health-care, minimum income, some sense of
> security and self-worth.

Humanity has progressed to where it is without that large a proportion
having these basics. Indeed, if one considers places such as Africa there
are parts where this has got worse in recent decades.

> The USA is at war with itself today because
> it lacks these things, and the most obvious symptom of this
> self-destruction is the massive rich-poor gap

Is there any way progress could have been exactly the same yet without this
situation?

I do think that the argument that if people cannot amass wealth there would
be no incentive to do outstandingly great things may not be correct, (many
famous creative artists lived lives of poverty) but there is a much larger
army of people who accumulate moderate wealth who could be demotivated if
they could not.

People we have spoken to seem to prefer to spend their savings having fun in
retirement if they think they are going to be consumed for their terminal
care. (And let the state pay). Admittedly you can die with privacy and
dignity if you pay enough, but the amount you have to pay (equivalent to
buying an average home every two or three years) is beyond a significant
portion of the population of the UK (and presumably the US as well).
Therefore it is pointless people saving to try and achieve it. (They could
still be in the 20% who die suddenly anyway).

> If you don't like calling belief in cryonics "faith", than call it
> "hope", it is still essentially the same psychological trick.

Signing for cryonics doesn't give certainty that you have avoided death. But
then, I doubt whether cryonicists take motoring risks simply because they
are wearing a
seat belt.

> > On the basis that people can "vote with their currency", WM wins the
> > election.
>
> John, with respect, I think your personal ideology is clouding your
> judgment. How can a person "vote with their currency" when there is no
> *actual choice*. You don't want to shop at WM? Too bad, it has put
> everyone else you could have shopped at out of business.

There will always be a transition point with both WM and the small shops.
Many small shops run "use it or lose it" campaigns, advising people what
they will happen if they use WM instead. That is the time people voted.
Those after the event can't vote, I agree, just as those in elected
dictatorships have no opportunity to change things.

> Again, you are giving no thought to the most obvious things, like
> advertising. Do you think that people make rational choices with their
> money? A good deal of research says not, which is why we still have
> commercials.

It is sensible buy things when and because them are needed. Refer to
advertising only to get specifications of products. Make judgements as to
whether desire is justified by the cost and the time spent using it. If
people prefer not to do this, then it is their choice.

This is more difficult when buying services. Those providing services find
it so easy to be dishonest and dishonourable. It is very difficult for
clients to make these judgements. (There are many services where you can't
compare like with like). Very often, trade and professional organisations
produce rules of conduct that their members can follow with a clear
conscience, yet still produce dissatisfied clients and allow dishonourable
although not illegal profit gouging.

[Wal Mart vs town centres]

> These "vociferous" minorities are rightly concerned with the flow of
> capital and community from their home towns, not to mention the
> increase in car use (= more exhaust, less exercise).

Driving around in circles looking for parking generates more fumes compared
to driving to where you want to be and then just stop in the nearest space.
Also, I would be interested to know if there is a statistic for accidents
during visits to town centres as opposed to visits to purpose made shopping
malls.

As to flow of capital from method A to method B, of doing anything, -- that
is progress. Are there people bemoaning the end of the chemical camera, its
"wait and see" results, and its support structure of development and
printing facilities? The end of the VCR and its complicated mechanism and
relatively heavy and complicated cassettes to be replaced with something
mechanically far simpler and its small lightweight optical disks? The end of
cine
cameras, then the tape based video camera, to be replaced with smaller,
lighter
solid state models? The demise of the public telephone box to be replaced by
cellphones? There are probably those who prefer the old ways in all these
instances, but the vast majority of people are happy with and use the new.

> Malls are - BTW - exceptionally ugly things compared to some UK
town-centres.

beauty is often synonymous with functionality, but you may be right here.
However there is no reason why good architectural practise cannot be
followed for malls and out of town centers. Personally I see no beauty in
something choked with a volume of people and conveyances it was never
designed to carry. But town centres could always be visited out of hours to
appreciate their architecture, although not for buying goods and services.

> > Yet there are howls of anguish when a mine is closed.
>
> Can you guess why? That's right, the lung-blackened miners depend on
> it for their livelihood and sense of self-worth.

more likely because they can earn more in the mine than elsewhere.

>
> > in (an) African country ... 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.
>
> Are you referring to Robert Mugabe's racist attacks of white farmers?
> If so, I don't really see a parallel between this and the hypothetical
> that you (and John K before you) laid out.

The fact that it was racially motivated seems irrelevant when one considers
the result.

I still don't know what the solution is given that these huge businesses
that were built and owned by one person or group of people actually exist.
Selling them to another individual or group and giving the money to poor
people merely transfers the problem to the point that someone considered by
collectivists to be selfish ends up owning the business. Problem not solved.
Chucking everyone out until no one owns it who is capable of operating it is
the Mugabe "solution", which of course isn't a solution as he has so ably
demonstrated.

********

> Recent messages have gone wildly off topic for cryonics.

This would only apply if those in cryopreservation could be sent to a future
where they could be revived without occupying the intervening time, or to a
future where they could continue their journey without occupying the
intervening time.

Although this could spark another debate as to whether this could ever be
possible, at present it seems that it will certainly be impracticable and
indeed far less likely than other scenarios. The nearest useful technology
for our purpose would the transmitterless collection of information from
the past, which violates no laws of causality or even common sense, and may
not require fantastic machinery or consumption of energy. The actual
technology to do this is still less conceivable than Aladdin's Lamp or The
Oracle was
to ancient Greeks. [We know something very similar as the Internet, of
course, search engines being the Oracle and credit card based shopping
Aladdin's Lamp, the credit limit replacing the 3 wishes. Indeed an ancient
Greek briefly glimpsing our world through a temporal anomaly and then trying
to describe what he saw would probably call a computer a lamp - that would
be the nearest word in his vocabulary.]

It could be argued that there is nothing that cryonicists can do about the
intervening history.

It could also be argued that the world can live with the anomalies of
economics. (ie the inequalities of wealth are a necessary price to pay for
progress.)

But all of this is still debating the point.

Also most importantly those who are responsible for cryonics facilities need
to consider likely future scenarios and work them into their planning.

-- 
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=28048