U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-22-2012, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,191 posts, read 9,043,946 times
Reputation: 6077

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
... with advances in nano technology we will have billions of little computers in us that will be able to kill diseases before we even know we are sick.
I'd say we'll need billions of them so that we can overcome the percentage of them that will be blathering away messages like "FATAL ERROR 0x005c at address 0xFFFF: Cannot display error message.". Particularly if Microsoft designs them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-23-2012, 07:23 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,683 posts, read 45,238,474 times
Reputation: 11862
Well if we compare ourself to the third world or poor people, I see no one having a crisis of conscience over having access to better medical care, drugs, treatments, doctors than a person in Africa, in some cases to save themselves when they should be dead.

One could also ask. If someone has a terminal illness, or is born with a condition that should kill them, is it moral to use modern medicine to save them or prolong their lives when the resources could go to Africa to save 'normal' people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2012, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,174 posts, read 20,974,759 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I'd say we'll need billions of them so that we can overcome the percentage of them that will be blathering away messages like "FATAL ERROR 0x005c at address 0xFFFF: Cannot display error message.". Particularly if Microsoft designs them.
LOL funny!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2012, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,092,210 times
Reputation: 36074
I have a question for the OP which might actually be more pertinent.

The current $2.3-trillion dollar US health care cost comes out to about $7,000 per person per year. Which means that at current costs (which are rising), it is costing us about $600,000 to keep a person alive and healthy for an 80 year lifespan. That figure will certainly rise to about a million within a decade or two, and several million to incorporate the medical effort required to significantly expand life expectancy as you have described.

Is it moral to have a million dollars of the national wealth spent to keep you alive and healthy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,174 posts, read 20,974,759 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I have a question for the OP which might actually be more pertinent.

The current $2.3-trillion dollar US health care cost comes out to about $7,000 per person per year. Which means that at current costs (which are rising), it is costing us about $600,000 to keep a person alive and healthy for an 80 year lifespan. That figure will certainly rise to about a million within a decade or two, and several million to incorporate the medical effort required to significantly expand life expectancy as you have described.

Is it moral to have a million dollars of the national wealth spent to keep you alive and healthy?
I am not the OP but I will answer this.

The cost will actually go down as with every ting associated with Information technology goes down. I know it does not look that way now but if you look at certain aspects of medical technology like mapping out the genome they have gone down and continue to go down. This will happen more and more as time goes on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,191 posts, read 9,043,946 times
Reputation: 6077
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I have a question for the OP which might actually be more pertinent.

The current $2.3-trillion dollar US health care cost comes out to about $7,000 per person per year. Which means that at current costs (which are rising), it is costing us about $600,000 to keep a person alive and healthy for an 80 year lifespan. That figure will certainly rise to about a million within a decade or two, and several million to incorporate the medical effort required to significantly expand life expectancy as you have described.

Is it moral to have a million dollars of the national wealth spent to keep you alive and healthy?
Is it moral to spend a million dollars to keep YOU alive and healthy? ;-)

Seriously, though, I think if medical technology could extend our lives with good quality in some unambiguous way, people would be willing, in the main, to pay quite a bit for that. The simpler and more effective and longer lasting the fix, the higher the price. I don't think the "morality" of it would even occur to folks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,092,210 times
Reputation: 36074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
I am not the OP but I will answer this.

The cost will actually go down as with every ting associated with Information technology goes down. I know it does not look that way now but if you look at certain aspects of medical technology like mapping out the genome they have gone down and continue to go down. This will happen more and more as time goes on.
It never happened in the past.. That's how our medical costs got up to $2.3 trillion. Everything kept going up -- thanks to medical technology. Why do you think that will suddenly turn around?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2012, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,191 posts, read 9,043,946 times
Reputation: 6077
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
It never happened in the past.. That's how our medical costs got up to $2.3 trillion. Everything kept going up -- thanks to medical technology. Why do you think that will suddenly turn around?
The cost of technology, particularly computer-based technology, has generally obeyed Moore's Law. It's true that due to liability issues and corporate greed, medical technology costs have increased, but they are at a breaking point where the "stupid" has to give way pretty soon, I'd think. Present costs are unsustainable, but the good news is there is nothing inherent in those cost levels, it's a political / graft / people issue and those are always fixable once the pain of change (for society) is less than the pain of not changing.

Also, costs are generally already far lower outside the US, even in countries with comparable standards of care -- proving that the problem is solvable. We simply have to quit mis-applying our incentives. In particular, the US system does not pay for results, but for procedures and drugs. When providers are no longer paid merely for cranking people through various peephole subsystems and are forced to work in context for actual results (improvement, cure or at least palliative results), costs will take care of themselves.

This is getting off topic so to the point of the OP, I don't think longer life spans or any other medical outcome is necessarily cost-constrained. Hypothetically a leap in life expectancy could be rather low cost, it doesn't necessarily have to consist of a baroque technology-heavy treatment. In fact such things are usually some previously missed outside the box simple answer if it's something more than an incremental refinement to what we already have. Simply providing ready access to clean water in the third world would significantly boost average life expectancy worldwide without much implementation cost at all. Of course if you'd simply regard that as more mouths to feed, you'd still worry about cost; I'd regard it as access to all that human capital and creativity. The guy who invents antigravity or cold fusion might be out there. Probably is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2012, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,092,210 times
Reputation: 36074
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
The cost of technology, particularly computer-based technology, has generally obeyed Moore's Law. .
Moore's law (if it applies to this at all) only applies within a parameter of an isolated technological metric. If you have one tech device, and it's cost is cut in half, you have not reduced costs if the same function expands to require four devices of a comparable tech level.


There are many areas in the US economy in which costs have risen despite technology. A letter could once be delivered by the post office with a 3 cent stamp and now it takes 15 such stamps, but inflation has not raised fixed costs 15-fold. My bank, now heavily computerized, charges fees of $20 or $30 to perform services they once did for free or no more than a dollar. Gas stations used to offer free air, but cannot find a technological way now to do it without charging a buck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2012, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Moku Nui, Hawaii
9,605 posts, read 18,802,940 times
Reputation: 8462
Well, what constitutes a "natural" lifespan? Rich folks generally live longer than poor folks since they've had benefits from the beginning. Just look at people's teeth, you can usually tell their economic level by their teeth and general health. It's not just in the United States, anywhere on the planet, those with more of the resources live better and longer than those who don't have the resources. It seems to make up for it, those with less have more offspring. These are just general trends, I'm sure everyone knows examples which don't fit within this framework.

I know a lot of folks who go out of the United States to have medical work done since they can afford it if it is done outside of the U.S. medical system.

Is it moral for those who have the resources to use them for themselves? It probably depends on how much of the resources are being used by one person/family/group and how much harm is being done to others by their acquisition of the resources. If someone can live forever without doing harm to anyone else, then I see no problem. It ruins their evolution and interferes with them reincarnating as a better entity or going on to a better place depending on their spiritual path, but that's up to them, I'd guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:40 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top