>From: Natasha Vita-More <natasha@natasha.cc>
>
>At 12:03 PM 3/25/00 EST, Greg Burch wrote:
>
> >Financing an
> >assault on the culture of death would do more to save human lives than
>any
> >other philanthropic enterprise.
>
>Precisely.
>
>I have read many of the posts on this thread and I'm mind boggled. I mean,
>if we are really talking about having some money to do something courageous
>with — what do you want to do? Live or die?
>
>I call it a war on death. The best defense is a cultural offense.
Yeah sure spreading longevity propaganda is a good idea. But I think you'll
have a hard time getting John & Jane Public to get on board until we can
eliminate (or at least substantially reduce) world poverty and hunger. I
mean the obvious response is: "What?!? There are *millions* of starving
people in the world who don't have access to decent medical care, potable
water or residential and communication infrastructures and you want us to
work on giving them indefinite life spans? Are you mad?"
If I had $100 million to donate I think it would go toward biotech research
geared toward increasing world food production and social programs geared
toward more equitable and efficient food distribution and medical care. I'd
also like to see more aggressive efforts to bring computers and
communication infrastructures to more of the developing world. Once you
have a relatively prosperous and informed world population, the longevity
bit will be a much easier sell.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:23 MDT