X-Message-Number: 20264 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 05:53:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Driven FromThePack <> Subject: Neolibertarian dogma Anton wrote: > CryoNet - Mon 7 Oct 2002 > > Message #20256 > From: "Mark Plus" <> > Subject: "The future of death" > Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 13:47:40 -0700 > http://www.btexact.com/ideas/futurology?doc=21053 > > The future of death > Biological > death might still be unpleasant, but it need no longer be a career > barrier. I found the article an interesting summation of the transhumanist position. However, I found it disturbing that the author considered the main problem with death to be the way it interrupts careers! Perhaps I have misunderstood, or perhaps my priorities are different and I do not consider a career to be the most important thing in life, or the interruption of a career the reason why death is so terrible." Great point! THis goes right to the heart of the neolibertarian (as opposed to paleolibertarian) viewpoint. Paleos think the USA, Canada, England, France, et al., should be organized for the benefit, comfort, well-being, ease, quality of life, etc., of the citizens. The neolibertarians think, or at least their dogma holds, that the western democracies should be organized for the benefit of investors. I don't think many neos would come right out and agree with me, but that is the end effect of their platform. It seems to me that paleolibertarianism was a reaction to the old-style of investor/robber baron/industrialist control of the populace, where the energy and life blood of the citizenry was to a great extent funneled into the military industrial complexes and the wars spwaned for the benefit thereof. That particular control strategy seems to have morphed into the, for lack of a better phrase, "globalism" strategy, where the citizenry are seen as livestock on the western democracy ranch, as opposed to vehicles for wars that spawned fortunes made in munitions, etc. Livestock that are there for working...at careers. I think this is relevant here in cryonet b/c neolibertarianism seems to be a dominant form of political thought here, but one that, to me, anyways, seems a dead end. Anton further wrote: "Thinking about the importance of a career lead me to consider the issue of money and longevity, It is likely that this issue has been discussed at cryonet before, but I am just a recent subscriber so I will air my thoughts. Feel free to direct me to an archived discussion of this issue if this is passe." WElcome to cryonet. Actually, your perspective is one I find refreshing. The extropian list, however, will more likely want to discuss this issue, as opposed to cryonetters. The extropians are often cryonicists, and probably represent a "hard core" neolibertarian faction of life extensionists. Anton wrote: "It seems likely to me that any future people that benefit from extreme longevity are going to have to be rich. Like today, longevity treatment/tech is sure to be expensive; the cost of cryonics, certain drugs and medical treatment, even good food and the other elements that support good health, will only be available for the comfortably rich at best and wealthy at worst. Though I expect treatment/tech to become cheaper and reach a mass market as it becomes more dated, I am dubious that immortality will be available for everyone or even many people." Aspirin pills were once expensive, no doubt. The future is not a static place in time. Many vital life extension will no doubt be expensive at first, but as manufacturing techniques improve and as patents expire, the costs will plummet. "Is it likely that a wealthy elite of immortals, all with a mono-maniacal work-ethic, political power and tons of excess capital will maintain their hold on wealth and power by living longer and longer? Perhaps this could lead to an enlightened oligarchy, though this would assume a beneficial relationship between age, reason and wisdom (will greater processing power magically make people more enlightened? Or more stubborn?). Perhaps instead the world will be home (or a launch pad, or a resource) to a technological vanguard who will leave behind or exploit the worlds mortals. Perhaps by then cultures will have sorted out their inequalities, but I find this unlikely. Extreme longevity treatments will probably happen soon and it seems likely and strange that our species may succeed in overcoming the most basic, ancient and constant problem of death, without succeeding in solving the younger and more variable problems of inequality, poverty and group violence." Sounds like a good sci-fi novel. However, reality is often more mundane... __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20264