In article: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950212144723.16568A-100000 at corona> Patrick
O'Neil <patrick at corona> writes:
> Conversely, I have considered the wideer ramifications of such
> manipulations and capabilities and have come to the conclusion that
> significant life extension in general would be disastrous. The worl
>There are a few points I would like to raise here.
1. That made by George Bernard Shaw - people living longer lives would be
personally concerned about the future and have less need to reproduce.
2. As population growth is exponential, if everyone who ever died was
resurrected, it would only double the world's population. And we are taling
about life extension, not resurrection.
3. by refusing life extension research on the grounds of population, we are
doing the same thing as saying to old people that we will not give you
access to medical treatment because we want to make room for someone else,
and that expands into "we will kill you to make room for someone else".
4. Some children were once asked if they met god, what would they ask. One
said: "Why do you go on making more people when you don't look after those
you have got?"
5. It is uneconomic to pay to educate new people if we can go on getting
contributions from those we have already educated.
Further comments welcomed, please.
--
Sincerely, ****************************************
* Publisher of Longevity Report *
John de Rivaz * Fractal Report *
* details on request *
****************************************
**** What is the point of life if it ends in death? ****
