Re: Who Should Live?

Michael S. Lorrey (
Thu, 18 Mar 1999 11:35:05 -0500

Billy Brown wrote:

> J. R. Molloy wrote:
> > No biggie, I just meant that overpopulation presently (not in the future
> or
> > the imagination) constitutes a problem which humans will need to solve
> > _before_ putting hundreds of millions of people into suspension.
> Why? Contrary to the beliefs of the Club of Rome, we have yet to face any
> significant shortage of resources. Suspending people who can pay for it
> simply creates another industry - and it isn't going to be any bigger than
> cosmetics, or tobacco.

Here's a way to do both: When a person reaches retirement age, they can be offered double their benefits if they undergo suspension immediately. Thus you remove an existing drain on the economy, deferring the liability and allowing the invested assets to grow the economy to a point where all can live in techno-paradise.

> > So, cryonics doesn't matter as much as addressing the issues of who should
> > live, which has the potential to ignite a global conflagration as
> desperate
> > humans compete for longer lives.

All should live. As the assets of those under suspension accrue interest and grow the economy and technology, the money will become available to develop mass launching systems, terraforming of Mars, reviving everyone, and cheap nanotech based health care and food production. The more people who are retired in suspension, the less money is wasted by unproductive individuals lifestyles.

Mike Lorrey