Do you think that bill and warren donate everything they have? Of course not. Neither would I, that's never what i said. But if i get rich i will definitely donate a lot of money to life extension researches instead of donating to charity, you can count on that.
Yes, I am quite aware you would, unfortunately. You missed the gist of what I was getting at--it's always people living comfortably in the Western world who make such statements, especially in the name of logic. Every niche cause, idea, movement, etc finds its position to be the most "logical" for society/humanity. My point was: If you're so dedicated to the cause, give up everything, see how it is to live in real poverty and then decide whether you'd still think it was a "pain killer" mindset to give to charity. Your statement is just the next step in a long and sordid line of flawed reasoning that has dominated societies in power when speaking about the rest of the world--pure self-interest disguised as "for the good of humanity".
So put your money where your mouth is: donate all your cash to life extension, then live in utter poverty for a few years and come back and tell us if you still find that the most "logical" decision is for those with wealth to turn their back on charity as "pain killer" ideology and simply donate to...life extension. You'd be giving to your "cause", which you've already said was *worth the lives of hundreds of millions of people*(by implication), so step up!I think this is short-term thinking and an instant pain reliever as i said before.
I think investing in technology is far more important than saving lives now. May seem cruel and too cold blooded, but in the long term many more lives are going to be saved by the technological advances created by billions of investment than by spending these billions in charity to save some lives now.
The problem is that people think this is a cold hearted approach, but i cant see a more logic approach than this one. Maybe thats the problem; its too logic for most people to understand and rationalize.
Yes, I saw this grossly monstrous, not to mention arrogant(ooh, you're just sooooo much more "logical" than all of us, including Bill Gates and Warren Buffet--those guys are just so stupid and illogical!) statement before and that was what I was getting at in my prior jibe. This "logical" thinking is reminiscent of Pol Pot and Mao Zedong and their "logical" conclusions for their societies. While you are not advocating proactive genocide, your callous indifference is its philosophical next door neighbor.
Beyond this, you also seem to have no grasp of history--that simply turning your back on the poor--especially when you are talking about 1 to 2 billion people--may lead to the destruction of entire societies, revolutions, international terrorism, and socio-economic upheavals that will have global impact. The resulting chaos will have unpredictable results, many of which will probably have a detrimental impact on life-extension technology, at the least. While I know all those hundreds of millions of people are nameless and faceless to you and separated, in all probability by tons of land and water, and therefore you believe their plight does not impact nor endanger your safe, comfortable environment, in this technologically advanced world, it has become more, not less imperative that we make an effort to help humanity as a whole and not simply people with the luxury to enjoy life extension.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of why there are massive logic holes in your position. You need to really push yourself to see beyond your own four walls before you make such radically rash statements.
suspire, why do you throw so much hatred against life-extension and cryonics? Why are you in these forums in the first place? Just to flame people that don't share your "absolute all-wise" point of view? Don't you have anything better to do?
I understand your point of view, but do you understand mine? I still believe mine makes more sense, but i agree with you, some people (you included) will think it's a cold hearted approach (i prefer to call it logical) since we're denying help for those in need now in order to help much more people in the future.
And yes you're right when you say that i hold interest in the approach i defend. Obviously i do, and i never tried to hide it. So the fact that i hold interest in my approach of where we should invest doesn't mean that it should be discredited, or that it's wrong.
You said about all those poor people that are suffering. But do you realize the amount of old sick people that are also suffering? From all the people that die on earth, 2/3 die of old age, which is 100,000. How many die of hunger? It's definitely far less. So i could argue that you don't care about old people and that you're very cold-hearted because you let them all die and suffer in old-age sicknesses. The only reason why the majority of people don't see it this way is because death and aging has been around for a long time so we got used to it. So you see, it's all a matter of perspective.