• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed

  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« Everybody Kills Hitler | Main | Don't Mess With "Big Dog" »

March 19, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


It was ok. I am always astounded when I hear people saying with a straight face that they wouldn't want to live in good health to 150. The lady's argument is at what cost, when we could be using these resources to help those in need. Well, that situation exists today. I have heard that something like 90% of your medical expenses happen in the last 10% of your life. That amounts to billions of dollars a year to treat old people when we could use that money to treat poor sick children throughout the world. No, when it comes down to it, people are greedy and want what is best FOR THEM and their family.

If these treatments come out, they will be wildly popular and I would be willing to bet that the vast majority who today say they wouldn't want them would use these treatments if they were available in the future. It's the only rational explanation when viewed from the perspective of humanity's unwaivering greed.

Tom Craver

Greater longevity for the wealthy vs "natural" longevity for the poor is a false alternative. We could have both, with the poor seeing their longevity tracking only a modest amount behind the richest.

The real alternative is

"Increase population faster than your economy can grow while imposing irrational economic policies"


"Have an improved quality of life, including greater longevity".

Look at China after a generation of a freer economy and a "one child" policy let them get ahead for a change.

The comments to this entry are closed.