X-Message-Number: 28055
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:05:17 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: the future of cryonics (socio-economic considerations)

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

> > Intellectual rights and copyright laws do just that(suppress better ideas) -
as one example.
>
> agreed, but they apply only for a limited time.

Ok, this is my point   an impediment to progress.

> The inventor has
> the choice as to whether to sell it to someone who will suppress it or to
> develop the invention.

Yes, and best to live in a situation where research into technology
and medicine are of higher importance than personal wealth.

> > 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.)

I'm not suggesting that Bush is going to marshal these forces against
the world   only that being coerced into going abroad to control your
reproductive organs, plan your future, and research into new medicines
is an impediment to good human life.


> It (running diesel cars on veg. oil) 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.

These days even Georgie-Porgie is talking about ethanol-blended
gasoline and hydrogen fuel cells   my contention is that this still
isn't enough for good health & that our resources could be governed
with better environmental policy that doesn't harm business, the
environment, or individuals.

> 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.

I agree   so as I said, 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. In response to
this point you said:

> I doubt that it is totally random  

By "power struggle" I didn't mean random. I was hinting at the
complexities behind human society.

> it may well be that the process is not
> understood.

If powers struggles generally were well understood, it is likely that
such knowledge would help to determine the outcome (of say, whether a
knew kind of medicine became widely accepted and practiced).

> People tend to call processes that cannot be defined
> mathematically "random". All this means is that the maths haven't been
> worked out yet.

I don't think you can reduce human relationships to maths any more
than you can reduce language to maths.   human relationships are the
task of the social sciences.

> > 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)

The president and vice president serve a term of office of four years.
The Twenty-second Amendment provides that no one may be elected to the
office more than twice, and that no one may be elected president more
than once who has held the office of (or acted as) president for more
than two years of another's term.

Regardless, the more Bush oversteps the mark, the worse it is for
civil liberties in the US and other parts of the world, plus the rest
of the world and future generations, get the message that US democracy
has become an autocracy.

> > > 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.

Almost every nation-state uses "religion based patriotism" and a form
of investigative epistemology to support it's understanding of human
nature and how people should be governed (e.g. science based humanism
in the case of socialism*). Science based humanism seems to be one of
the best ways of doing this. Religious based patriotism is often ugly
and conservative, but it seems inevitable, so it is best to ensure a
close dialogue between it and science-humanism.

*I can't be sure what kind of socialism you're referring to here.

> > > 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.
> >
> > Again, too simplistic.
>
> ... from the point of view of timescale

No, from the point of view of the concepts you are employing. Ideas do
not exist in a Darwianian ecosystem of "survival of the fittest" -
ideas are successful when they can inspire people, giving them a
meaningful framework in which they can act and measure their success.

> "just" and "good" are less meaningful than "effective".  It is the latter the
> legislature sets out to achieve, whatever posturing goes on about justice
> and fairness.

I didn't intend to imply that the legal system was a moral force - point taken.

> 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.

People always matter.
I agree with your view from a cold, analystical perspective, but in my
vision of a fairer world, justice is more personal.

> 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.

Indeed. I could argue that it is our duty to be constantly aware of
the short-comings of the institutions we live with, ready to criticise
and appraise the actions of our fellows and power-groups. This kind of
pressure can lead to improvements. Cryonicists cannot simply expect
the "law of accelerating returns" or God or the Pres. to protect us
from bad decisions made by others.

> However there may be
> an asymptote that can only be approached. (like absolute zero of
> temperature)

I'm not suggesting that we can some day live in a utopia (made by AIs,
people, or deities).

> > 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.

Interesting! And how many if you have to pay?

> > 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.

Eventually - I was referring to our current cryonic resources.

> 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 is an interesting scenario to mull over.

> > 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.

On that note - despite protests - I'll continue in debate with anyone
who is willing. If no one responds, I'll assume there is a consensus
that my posts are irrelevant. This is how it works with all
non-moderated mailing-lists, does it not?

> > 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.

Humanity has survived without nation states, corporations, police,
armies, etc. etc. Humanity will only *progress* when people are
afforded the basics. If people are less afraid, more educated,
healthy, and living in a culture which has potential, they are likely
to be more tolerant, thoughtful, and reasonable. There is no progress
if most people in the world are still labouring under medieval
ideologies, autocractic rulers, and in resentful, frustrated, and
despairing poverty.

> > 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 can only speculate. The point is that massive concentrations of
wealth and power are not democractic progress, it is not fair nor good
- it is a form of oligarchy based on the sustained impoverishment of
most people, and the unsustainable use of finite resources.

> 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.

The problem is what is motivating - should people be motivated to
achieve their potential with monetary rewards, or should the rewards
be something else - e.g the good consequences of their hard-work
accord them status and regard from the people they have helped. People
do not need money, they need to feel good about themselves, like they
are making a valuable contribution to a meaningful society - you do
not need money to express your success. Money is merely the current
cultural symbol which represents personal value (e.g. the status
symbol of an expensive car which "proves" how "good" the buyer is).

> 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.

Your comparison to dictatorships is telling.

> > 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.

In which case, we Westerners are acting most insensibly.

> Refer to
> advertising only to get specifications of products.

It doesn't happen that way though does it? Commercials distort
perception. Society suggests that shopping and owning are good things
and will make you a better person.

> 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.

If people prefer to lynch a handy scapegoat instead of going through a
legal process, then it is their choice also.

Just because choices are made, which might even seem "free" on the
surface, this does not mean such choices should not be overseen by
institutions with a rational agenda.

> > 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.

What about public transport?

> 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.

An interesting, but fairly minor point in discussing the wealth or
impoverishment of a community.

> the vast majority of people are happy with and use the new.

It should be clear that I'm just as interested in tech progress as you
are - but such progress should be accompanied by social progress. What
are the costs of "progress"? How to measure it and how to manage the
benefits fairly and reduce the problems?

> > 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.

Again, I'm not suggesting that Bill Gates should be replaced by a
commisar, only that Bill Gates shouldn't be so rich - even if he is
running a great charity. His monopoly of wealth and power is not
justified by his charity, just as charity is an inadequate solution to
US social problems.

> 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.

Yes, it is a immense problem, but the rich-poor gap must be addressed.
To reiterate - a mere 200 people have more wealth than East Timor,
Somalia, Sierra Leone, Malawi, Tanzania, Burundi, Congo, Republic of
the Congo, Comoros, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Niger, Yemen,
Madagascar, Guinea-Bissau, Zambia, Kiribati, Nigeria, Mali, etc. etc.

****

BTW I like your thoughts on PCs as lamps etc.

> 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.)

Sure - the ultimate conservative stance. What a joke to suggest that
this is the best we can do! What pessimism for human potential - & the
future to which we all wish to belong.

Anthony

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28055