Re: Technical and Spiritual Development

From: William Mook (william.mook_at_mokindustries.com)
Date: 01/24/05 

Date: 24 Jan 2005 05:33:18 -0800

Terrell Miller wrote:
> William Mook wrote:
> > It is impossible to ban people from having children.
>
> Q: What is a Chinese foster home?
> A: a syringeful of formaldehyde
>
> > It is uneeded in
> > advanced industrial cultures.
>
> such as the Arabian peninsula, where it's pretty common for one man
to
> have a couple dozen children by several different wives and
concubines?

While sexual activity is generally required for preganancy (but not
always given artificial insemination) the number of offspring one has
is quite independent of one's propensity to engage in sexual activity
(given birth control).

Why is it impossible for those who post here to see that it would be
easy and preferable to incorporate a anti-fertility drug into an
anti-aging serum? Because they wish to paint the worst possible face
on anti-aging treatments, thats why.

> > Right now the wealthiest societies are
> > already declining in numbers and are maintained by constant influx
of
> > settelers from less developed regions. What will happen as society
> > becomes even wealthier and that wealth is spread throughout the
world
> > by market forces?
>
> what makes you think that market forces will make the whole world
> wealthy?

Because wealth is a consequence of choices people make, not a condition
they find themselves in.

Because wealth is created not taken.

So, it is quite feasible that if everyone makes the right choices,
everyone could be quite wealthy.

> Is there anything in Rwanda or El Salvador that is of value to
> anyone?

Yes. Each other.

> Otherwise the Rwandans and Salvadorans don't have anything to
> become wealthy *with*.

Yes they do. Themselves.

> The only chance that Third World countries have to become wealthy is
if
> they come up with some new in-demand service that doesn't depend on
> their own physical resources.

Income and energy use are related. Cheap energy is the only thing in
real short supply.

There are plenty of physical resources otherwise.

What is limited in our industrial world is cheap energy. That's
because we have restricted ourselves to fossil fuels extracted from
reserves that are limited to around 900 billion barrels.

Humanity uses around 30 billion barrels per year to drive its industry.
To allow every man woman and child to live at US levels or better
would require the production of 330 billion barrels per year. This is
a rise from around 6 trillion watts to 70 trillion watts of power.

Given a supply of energy sufficient to this task, economic activity
would grow at 4% in places like the US and at double digit rates in
places like those you mention. This means we could transform the world
in a generation.

Provided of course, we have cheap energy.

Cheaply available energy is in short supply throughout the world. If
we could develop a low-cost source of synthetic oil derived from
atmospheric CO2, we would see a dramatic rise in economic growth
throughout the world and have a means to manage CO2 emissions.

> India is doing that now with software
> development. China is well on the road to doing the same thing (want
a
> $20 copy of Office? Han can take care of you).

These tactics are important given the current limitations of energy.
Global trade is also shaped by the US Navy and access to the world's
oceans.

This will change as rises in living standards in China and India begin
to impact US access to cheap oil. Assuming of course, no new cheap
alternative energy sources are developed.

> But a prerequisite for that success is a highly educated populace.

Educated enough you mean to be highly productive.

> That
> takes time and money.

Yes, but growth rates in the double digits are possible. This means a
doubling of wealth every 5 to 7 years. This means transforming a
subsistence society into a highly industrial society of great wealth in
a generation.

This is not surprising, Ronald Reagan lived through the transformation
of his society from a gaslit horse and buggy era to Star Wars. The
Japanese saw the transformation of their society after World War II.
The Chinese and Indian people are transforming their society as well in
a generation.

There is absolutely given sufficient energy resources the entire world
could not be producing a quadrillion dollars a year or more in wealth
(up from $40 trillion today)

> You may notice that the two countries I mentioned
> happen to be the most-populated countries in the world, with a
combined
> third of the world's population. It's a lot easier for big countries
> like that to bootstrap themselves than it is for scarcely-populated
> regions like Africa or Latin America.

Actually, its easier for them to create significant flows of capital
for investment even if they are isolated from the world's trading
system. But they are so massive, it requires significant sustained
investment to make an impact.

Smaller countries on the other hand are limited in their ability to
generate capital flows internally. But any capital formation as an
immediate impact.

Clearly smaller nations could access the capital flows of the
international capital markets to great benefit.

Its not the lack of capital that's the problem though. Its the
inability of local governments to see the benefits of free capital
markets.

Still, the only thing the world really lacks is sufficient energy to
support global industrialization on the scale needed.

> > That's right, the entire world population will be in
> > decline.
>
> that's pretty certain to happen in the last half of the century
> regardless of what the world's GNP is or isn't.

Yes. We have a choice. We can see a decline in human numbers due to
rising living standards and the rising influence of women in the
marketplace. Or, we can see a decline in human numbers due to rising
death rates due to rising poverty and resource limitations.

> The countries with
> explosive population growth will run out of resources to support that

> growth pretty soon, so their numbers will level off and start
dwindling.

Yes, rising death rates. But such nations will not go to the wall
quietly. They will likely blame the wealthy nations and create their
own versions of Jihad against those nations.

> > Under these circumstances, the results of longevity research will
be
> > welcomed as a panecea.
>
> sure, as long as you can afford the exorbitant fee that the drug
> companies will charge *because they can*.

Only during the period their patents are in force. Less than 20 years.
After that time they will be generic drugs, and cheap.

But you bring up an important point. We face a choice in how the
decline in human numbers will be brought about. If we raise living
standards, there will be a general easing of international tension and
a large diverse population will be the result. If we allow a decline
in living standards, there will be increasing tension and a small
narrow population will be the result.

> The folks who can afford
somec/boosterspice/whatever-Spinrad-called-it
> will have an enormous competitive advantage over those who can't.

What you call a competitive advantage is actually a productivity
advantage. Clearly everyone is better off if everyone is more
productive. Limiting the ability of people to be productive is
foolishness.

> Those
> people will be the exact same ones who tend to be in leadership
> positions (government or captains of industry or investors).

You are obviously not a wealthy or powerful person, given the way you
think about things. Wealth and power are unlimited. Because, wealth
and power are not given - they are the result of a way of thinking and
behaving. Its the thoughts and the behavior that lead to wealth and
power.

The more people think and behave in ways that lead to wealth and power,
the more wealth and power there is. Removing the limitations of aging
and death will release limitations currently weighing down the human
spirit and as a result, many more will be able to create wealth and
power and for longer periods - this will transform society in very
beneficial ways.

> There would be a huge incentive for the host government of the first
> drug company to develop an antiaging serum to strictly regulate its
> production.

Nonsense. There will be some concern as to the drug's impact on
population, and laws will be passed early on to require the
incorporation of an anti-fertility drug in the anti-aging drug
treatment. That's all. As the impact of such linkage makes itself
felt, even that will be repealed as human numbers fall (due hopefully
to increased wealth, not increased death rates.)

> The drug company doesn't care,

Yes they do. All companies want to maximize their profits. This means
selling at the peak profit point to the largest population possible.
Any compay that misses this opportunity leaves the door open to a
competitor who will make maximal profit and eventually bury the first
company.

> they can make a massive
> fortune just selling it to the Beautiful People. Saves them a lot of
> organizational bother not to have to expand the company's
bureaucracy,
> and it's guaranteed profit. The b-school term for that is "cash cow".

You obviously didn't go to business school. Any product has a peak
profit point. As you raise prices you increase per unit profits. This
is a function of your production cost. But as you raise prices, you
decrease sales. This is a function of your demand curve. Multiply per
unit profit by units sold and you get total profits. The result is an
inverted parabolic curve with a single peak point - the peak profit
point. This is the price you sell your product at, and the volume you
organize to produce and sell the product at - given your technology and
the demand *curve* for your product.

As I mentioned, anyone who sets an arbitrarily high price for a product
and sells only to those who can afford the price is leaving the door
wide open to a real business person who takes the trouble to learn the
market and method and set a price and volume that maximizes profits for
his operation.

> So the production runs of the drug are very small because of
"technical
> difficulties".

You put quotation marks around technical difficulties to indicate that
these are not real, but excuses to limit production. Clearly, this
doesn't change the condition that leaves the door open to a competitor
who operates in a business like way.

> Which means that the price will be sky-high.

Which means there is huge unfilled demand beckoning competitors to
enter the market to fulfill it.

> Which means
> that very few people can afford it.

Until competitors enter the market to fulfill the unmet demand that
provides the greatest profit.

> Which means that you get a very few
> very rich immortals.

No, you will have designer brands and generic brands. That's all.
This is no different than a movie theater owner who sells student
discount tickets to maximize his profit.

> Who ruthlessly guard their source of immortality.

Why? This doesn't follow from your earlier argument. If you have the
money and access to the resource you want, and can get it at a price
you're willing to pay, what do you care what others do?

Obviously, telomerase is pretty easily made and given sufficient
rationale will be made in significant quantities at very reasonable
costs. Initially the drug will be expensive, maybe $300 per treatment
and $30,000 overall. Eventually, treatments will drop to $500 or so.
Such treatments will be needed each decade or so. So, we're talking a
market entry point of $3,000 per year dropping to $50 per year once the
drug becomes generic - a period of less than 20 years.

> Meanwhile that company can plow lots of its earnings from the
> immortality drug into spinoff substances that will create superficial

> "fountain of youth" effects similar to Botox. *Those* drugs go on teh

> mass-market and are wildly successful and profitable as well. The
> have-lesses are happy because they feel and look a little younger,
and
> maybe they get to tack a few more years onto their lifespan. Good for

> them. But that draws attention away from the *real* immortality
serum,
> which is a virtual State Secret.

While this may appeal to your sense of dramatic - there is absolutely
no business reason to restrict a substance that has the sorts of demand
curves and production costs we're talking about. Given the demand and
likely production cost of an anti-aging treatment it will be widely
available and universally used. Just like aspirin.

> But pretty soon people start noticing that some folks just do not get

> any younger, and questions are raised. So the immortals live a
> peripatetic life, traveling from place to place under different
> identities. As soon as they start to get compliments on "you haven't
> changed a bit!" from locals who have known them for decades, time to
> move on. Then they recycle themselves as newly arrived
twentysomethings,
> or whatever physical state they manage to maintain.

Well, this dramatic sequence of events was developed fictionally by
Heinlein in his Future History series of short stories, with Lazarus
Long as the central character you describe.

So, perhaps you are recalling that series. Of course, there is
absolutely no basis for anything you say - except that it makes a
dramatic story.

Reality is likely to be less dramatic. Most likely is that pricing and
avaialability will be set according to good business practice, which
means that maximal profit will be made by making the drug universally
available at the highest price the demand curve suggests. This price
will be easily affordable by all and provide maximal profit to the
manufacturers, while not leaving any door open to competitors.

I do think there will be variation of pricing for different
populations, just as there are variations in pricing of shampoo and
beauty products. But efficacy will not vary.

> All those Mexican kids in your neighborhood who nobody knows exactly
> where they came from and they aren't real eager to flash their IDs?

Bull***.

> Them <g>
>
> > The things you imagine being done are the result of a diseased
> > imagination and have nothing to do with the prospect of living
forever.
>
> Ah yes, Bill Mook is the only person in the world who has everything
> figured out.

Hey, I said the imaginings were the result of a diseased imaginations
and I stand by it. Anyone who thinks the preferred way of reducing
fertility is by sewing up vaginas and prohibiting sexual activity and
thought - has a diseased imagination.

> Which is why he has to drift from one failed get-rich-quick
> scheme to another, always riding the wave of whatever hi-tech fad
> happens to be in vogue at the time.

Such drivel used to bother me. But I see now the nonsense it is.

I do admit that I am driven by a sense I need to do more, always. But,
I am anything but the failure you portray!

I was reflecting on my feelings just recently, as I sat in my chartered
jet flying back from Washington after meeting with politicians about an
energy project I'm working on.

As I sipped my cocktail, prepared by the co-pilot before take off, and
propped by feet up on the leather seating opposite I regarded by hand
stitched Italian shoes and allowed myself to feel rich and powerful as
I realized that very few people could pull of a lunch at the Hay-Adams
hotel Senators and other officials invited from the White House, since
very few people could afford to pay a Washington lobbying firm $24,000
per month for any length of time.

> > While it may be possible to indoctrinate a minority of youth to any
> > sort of aberrant behavior such indoctrination rarely sticks as they
age
> > and mature and come to know themselves better.
>
> I've got 90-year-old relatives who still use the N-word, Bill. People

> rarely change their opinions, they just learn to gloss them over
better :(

While on any given day people are pretty much the same they were the
day before, people do change, and on occasion capable of dramatic
transformation. While such transformations are rare on a day to day
basis, they are a certainty given enough time. If you live forever,
there will be enough time. Once you've transformed yourself a few
times, it becomes easier and you achieve a whole new level of
understanding yourself.

Of course, if you know what I'm talking about, I don't need to say it.
If you don't, being too young perhaps, or too stupid, then nothing I
say in this regard makes much sense.

> > So, in a world where
> > everyone lives forever, what you describe as conditions - if they
ever
> > occur at all - will be short lived against the grand arc of ones
life.
> > Recalled and laughed at as one might recall a bad dream.
>
> that midlife crisis thing is a real bitch, ain't it Bill? ;)

A few years ago, yeah.

> > The only lasting change is one that occurs through universal
voluntary
> > selection. People already voluntarily decide to limit the number
of
> > children they have in the wealthier countries. This has more to do
> > with empowering women than anything else.
>
> um no, it has to do with working at a job that doesn't require any
> manual labor that you need a bunch of kinds to help out with, that
and
> the fact that many more children survive to their fifth birthday than

> they did for all but the last century of human history.

Women make the choice to have kids and allow them to thrive. Men only
play a small part in that.