>> Ravi: It seems that your quest is immortality and your belief is that the Western life-style (in stark terms: 5% of world population consuming 30% of the world’s resources, where 50% of all food produced is thrown into the trash) is what is going to bring about this immortality. Let us ignore: (a) that not everybody might share your Groundhog Day fancy (I for one am feeling pretty done by this point in my life), (b) there is some confusion on how much shorter was hunter-gatherer life especially when you filter out death due to violence (as we should for the purpose of this discussion, since technology, in the context of conflict, only increases violent death). Ignoring these, the very fact that at least some dirt poor third world residents make it to the age of 80 (“counterfactual”) should make it clear that the “God awful Western life-style” is not a *necessary* ingredient of a long life.
>>
>
> Somebody: Good heavens, of course *some* dirt poor third world residents make it to 80. The whole point is that they achieve this age at a much lower rate than people living in more industrialized nations. Come on Ravi, you know this. You just don't like the idea of more people living like Japanese and Americans for aesthetic reasons.
Yes, you are right that I do know that the point is to increase the general longevity of the third world to match that of industrialised nations (or Cuba!). That we agree on. But the reason I parenthetically added “counterfactual” in my post above is this: even if one person who does not live in the manner of a Western person reaches the age of 80 with a good health record, then there is something about his environment *also* that leads to such results.
Perhaps one reason for his singular longevity is greater individual wealth and therefore better access to technology. My counter-argument is that such longevity is observed even in some of the poorest and rural segments of the third world. Perhaps the counterfactual is hollow since this individual is a rare genetic lottery winner. That would be understandable if it was truly one or a few persons. But though I lack hard data, I suspect the numbers, in absolute, (living to 75 or above) are large. Also note that India achieved in 15 years post independence the sort of longevity gains that it took another 35 years to repeat (and we are not talking about the exponentially difficult task of eking out a few more years at the top, at natural limits at about 75 or so, but a current life expectancy of a sprightly young 64).
Or to consider nations whose lifestyles are significantly different from that of the United States: say Albania, at 77 and Saudi Arabia at 73. Both within range of the “Western lifestyle” gains of the USA, at 79.
But of course we are getting a lot of terms muddled here… we started with “technological progress” and have reached “Western lifestyle”. I think the latter is a distraction, so I am shifting back to the former (after all technological progress was underway millennia before the greatest nation on the planet in all history had even taken birth).
The question then is for nations with a poor health and longevity track record, is technological progress the solution? I will use once again the example of India. According to the US Census Bureau India (at the turn of the last century) has an infant mortality rate of 66 per 1000; in comparison, it’s neighbour Sri Lanka has a rate of 20 per 1000. Is that because India has access to lesser technology than Sri Lanka does? Sri Lanka comes in ahead of even China (a major supplier of technology to the world) which is at 40 per 1000. What else does Sri Lanka do better at? Life expectancy, as can be expected, clocking in at an impressive 74 (to repeat for the sake of comparison: Indian life expectancy is 64, and US life expectancy is 79).
I think it would be an uphill climb to assign credit to technological progress for these impressive Sri Lankan results. Surely they are not privy to some industrialised nation techno-secrets and advances that are withheld from India and China?
Why does India do badly at infant mortality? The Census Bureau lists some reasons: inadequate antenatal care and delivery services, low level of immunisation among children, and a substantial proportion of high-risk births. What is a high-risk birth? “Births falling in one or more of the following categories: occurring to women under age 18 or over age 34, occurring within 24 months of last birth, and birth order higher than 3”.
None of these problems cry out to be solved by advances (progress) in technology. Perhaps faster planes, trains and automobiles can fix the delivery services problem? Robot doctors can fan out into rural India providing better antenatal care? Higher immunisation rates can be achieved by being delivered by a holographic Buzz Lightyear?
Though I am being facetious with the above questions, I will gladly admit that one can imagine meaningful technological advances that might address these problems. But that is no different than shaping the problem into a nail because we possess a powerful hammer.
One can also imagine technological means by which 15 year old girls can bear children with no increased risk to both children (the mother and the infant). Or technological advances through which women can be more efficient child production mills without adding risk to offsprings numbered greater than three.
But the problems, if one were honest, are not lack of technological progress, but corruption, ignorance, religion, so on. We do not need women bearing children earlier or in greater numbers. We do not need newer, more advanced vaccines.
We need to remove the non-technological barriers that cause the current state.
And if despite all these disadvantages, some number of the population is living to a ripe old age, we need to pay attention to what it is in their environment, lifestyle (and genes if you wish) that brings about this result. There might be lessons to learn their, that are not limited to Western romaniticising.
> I'm not impressed by your making fun of the idea of extending the duration of healthy lifespan. In that, you're in good company. Many good religious people consider it unspeakable that mankind should play God and seek to improve its genetic destiny. It makes me sad that the few people who are forward thinking enough to reject this point of view are disproportionately of the libertarian inclination. The left should be stalwartly on the side of improving the human condition. It used to be.
But I am not against improving the human condition, including longevity. But 80 is a pretty good number, and more effort should be spent to getting all of humankind there. The question or debate is only how to get there.
—ravi