Immortality and Personal Finance

chris arkenberg
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:25:36 -0700

Dan wrote:
>I suppose it would be less haunting to people (like
>  > yourself?) who have already given up on survival, but I don't think
>>  these fatalist views should dominate the discussion.

I don't see how you can fairly make this statement from what I've 
said. But thanks for your sympathies otherwise (and you have mine as 

Robert wrote:
>I am forced to agree (though I disagree that the original author
>may be so fatalistic).

Thank you.

I am simply arguing that:

1) Developed societies are not efficient and balanced enough to 
manage natural resources effectively,
2) Developed societies are too preoccupied with profit motive and 
politics to aggressively develop new technologies more in tune with 
conservation and ecology (e.g. petrochem vs. solar or hydrogen 
3) There are many life-limiting factors that are still far from being 
cured. Cancer and heart disease are more common than ever, and are 
less and less tied to aging (e.g. tobacco, dioxins, acrylamide, 
radiation, etc...),
4) I am more concerned about my family and friends being able to live 
past 50 or 60 than I am about them being able to live past 100. (My 
God! Do I want us all to suffer 200 years of the Bush family trying 
to rule the planet?)

That said, I still think there is a valid place for LE research, but 
it should be tempered with the fundamental realities of the current 
human condition. However, the results of any research are not 
confined to the lab, and it may be the case that LE will just be one 
piece of a larger technological paradigm shift that will radically 
alter our entire existence.