An appropriate time to remind you that you put both stakes in the ground, juxtaposing “technological progress” vs the feeble shoulders of the working class. All we are trying to say is that technological progress is not assured (the “progress” bit), and often (sometimes of necessity) introduces a host of problems, does not guarantee equitable distribution of its benefits; further, it (technological progress) not critical to solving the problems that prevent all of mankind from living a healthy, fulfilling life, *today*.
You write:
> The thing to remember when dealing with poor countries like the Indian state of Kerala is that vast improvements in life indicators can be achieved relatively cheaply through the institution of basic public health measures, nutrition, family planning, community clinics, and skilled attendants available for birth. But, beyond a certain point, further gains in life expectancy require rapidly increasing levels of technology.
But remember that you also wrote (in response to my counterfactual) that the problem is to increase the rate of longevity across the population i.e., we are not at the point beyond which “further gains in life expectancy” are the chief concern. Rather, the question is how to correct the unequal distribution of health within a population. And that, as you write, can be achieved through basic public health measures, nutrition, family planning, etc. Nothing to do with technological progress.
And this is not a trivial distinction. The problem of achieving a satisfying, healthy and long life to all people is monumental, especially in comparison to stretching longevity a few years past 80.
Are we going around in circles?
—ravi