46 replies to this topic

[nefastor]

I voted yes. Like the majority (not surprising : this is Imminst, after all, why should we shoot ourselves in the foot ?)

I have but a simple reason for voting yes : governments spend a lot of money on a lot of things that don't really matter. Or are totally illegal and immoral (I believe you call it "pork" and "earmarks" in the US. Every country has its equivalent, mine does to).

If there's enough money for "bridges to nowhere", there's enough money for "trying to stay alive longer". I'm actually surprised, given the nature of politicians worldwide (wrinkly old farts closer to the tomb than to their graduation day) that they aren't all funding anti-aging research already. I certainly can't imagine they feel so guilty about their careers they'd actually welcome death.

Nefastor

[FieldMarshal]

Government funding would simply mean more government control of future anti-aging technology. The government basically takes money from taxpayers and gives it to anti-aging organizations via subsides. The government

While progress might be sped up, getting government funding is impractical anyway. Its easy to sucumb to the logic of "the government spends billions on X, why not spend it on anti-againg?". If we could micromanage the actions of the government, we could obviously skew everything in our favor. But we can't. This is democracy, and if we try to take the place of the government and create a society where every thing is perfect, that's communism.

Involvement from major biotech firms, more media, and an overall change about society's perception of the possibilites of the future are necessary to propel anti-aaging as a social movement, not as a government movement.

[brokenportal]

It seems to me that the government will have to have at least a token positive stance on this.

Remember, you can support the Washington life extension lobbyist Tom Mooney at coalitiontoextendlife.org

Hes given a copy of Ending Aging to every member of congress. Hes working to try to get the presidential candidates to mention life extension, acknowledge life extension on their platforms, and hes also working to create some kind of video to support this amongst other things.

[nefastor]

It seems to me that the government will have to have at least a token positive stance on this.

Remember, you can support the Washington life extension lobbyist Tom Mooney at coalitiontoextendlife.org

Hes given a copy of Ending Aging to every member of congress. Hes working to try to get the presidential candidates to mention life extension, acknowledge life extension on their platforms, and hes also working to create some kind of video to support this amongst other things.

It's awesome that our cause has its lobbyist. I didn't know. Still, good luck getting a candidate to mention life-extension or immortality when they all feel they need to be Jesus-freaks in order to get elected. Remember : immortality means no afterlife, so good-bye God, nice knowing ya

I don't care what politicians say : we all know they lie every time their lips move. It'd be OK for me if the candidates talked like Jesus-freaks in front of the camera, but in the Oval Office voted for some major funding for life-extension research. I assume that's what Mooney is really aiming for, right ?

Nefastor

[abolitionist]

I'm not saying we should enforce it without putting it through democratic process. Just to try and sell it to the public and attempt to put measures through congress like others are doing.

I think that medicine already has given us longer lives and will continue to do so - and really all the symptoms of aging that eventually lead to death can be spun as medical problems ;-)

[Karomesis]

they had better.

in a few decades the cost of care for the aging population will make the Iraq war look like a flea market sale.

[Luna]

This is not a perfect world, despite what people say and many in the world who seek life are at an age they need fast breakthroughs in order to live.

I vote yes because the governments have the highest funding ability and if this money will come for our goal, we must not deny it.

[nefastor]

in a few decades the cost of care for the aging population will make the Iraq war look like a flea market sale.

Indeed. We already have an example of how an aging population can cause a crisis for a nation : Japan.

The reason why they do so much robotics is not because of an overdose of Gundam and Macross and Votoms (but it surely helps )... it's because they realize they soon won't have enough young people to take care of the old people. And since they also realize they are all gonna get old someday, they want to make sure that problem is taken care of pronto.

That's why they make robot-violinists : it's got nothing to do with replacing real violinist, it's just that playing the violin requires the kind of dexterity you need to give a sponge-bath to semi-comatose old people without mauling them.

Contrast that with the amount of money the US government, through DARPA, invests in combat robots. I think it says a lot about the American people.

One think is sure, I don't want to be in the US when the only robots available to take care of old people are Terminators retrofitted to bake cookies

Nefastor

[VictorBjoerk]

Imagine if 10% of all income tax in the usa went to aging research.Then we may have come much closer to a solution

[JonesGuy]

Imagine if 10% of your income was invested in biomedical research start-up ventures!

[Anaxim]

I voted yes. A government with a financial commitment for immortality would probably start legislating from an immortalist perspective, which would in turn increase publicity and mean even more funding. A virtuous circle of commitment and expectation.

Blundering and corruption could be a problem, but the goal of immortality is sufficiently exciting and high-minded to ward off the traditional problems of governmental involvement.

[Heliotrope]

imagine instead of giving 10% to churches as tithe and gone to the collection pan, you donate the 10% to LE

Edited by HYP86, 19 May 2008 - 06:47 AM.

[VictorBjoerk]

What is more important for a country than to give the inhabitants the right to live?

I like the petition of Tom Mooney....

[Prometheus]

I know it is fashionable to want governments to pay for every we want but it just isn't the most ethical way to do it. I had to vote no on principle.

Im curious: what, in your opinion, are the bare essentials that the government should have to pay for?

[forever freedom]

I voted yes. A government with a financial commitment for immortality would probably start legislating from an immortalist perspective, which would in turn increase publicity and mean even more funding. A virtuous circle of commitment and expectation.

Blundering and corruption could be a problem, but the goal of immortality is sufficiently exciting and high-minded to ward off the traditional problems of governmental involvement.

That's for sure, but on a sidenote, imagine an immortal corrupt politician

Death is the only way they can be punished since law apparently doesn't apply to them.

[biknut]

That type of research isn't the province of government-in fact, much of what the government does do today, it shouldn't do. Spending should be reduced, not increased.

This is more or less what I was thinking.

I can see a need for the government to spend money on the military, in fact the constitution says that's one of the duties required of the government.

A government grant to a university or private research laboratory to study aging would be alright if the results were made public. Especially if they're already funding studies on the effects of global warming on cockroach larvae.

[Forever21]

We need all the help we could get so YES to government funding.