n a message dated 3/18/00 9:22:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

>
>  The solution is to simply reverse the majority balance of the flow of
>  funding to the other end of life (children and young adults), and to
>  eliminate or restrict processes in society that cause early disease in
>  life.     There is nothing wrong with a government that assumes its
>  responsibility to regulate away hazards, as much as possible, though
>  capitalist society will clamor that this is limiting individual
>  freedoms.
>

Yes, it is true that the idea that the state has the right and the government
(the citizenry) has the responsibility to eliminate any and all things
considered 'hazardous' would be viewed by many as eliminating individual
freedoms, and could only succeed in a totalitarian society.

    What you suggest is analogous to the farmer who, seeking a healthy herd,
ensures that only a certain feed combination is used, the animals are kept
securely behind fencing, the runts are culled (killed), mating is restricted
to those matches that will encourage the traits deemed beneficial, and all
get sent to market when they are of a certain age/weight thus avoiding the
onset of age related decline.  You advocate a very market based strategy, but
who is going to be the "farmer"?;-)

    Or if you prefer an all human analogy, it is like a plantation master
guarding the productivity of his human property by determining what his
slaves could do, what they were to be fed, who would be allowed to mate, and
how many resources should be expended on the sick or the aged.  Again a very
capitalist based strategy of asset management, but who is going to be the
master?

  In today's hi-tech world your strategy would result in genetic exams used
to determine whether a 'citizen' should be sterilized because of genes that
might pass ''criminal' tendencies onto their kids, or a genetic tendency to
pass a disease or deformity onto offspring, pregnancies would require testing
of the unborn child and if it showed any genetic anomaly that would incur a
cost to 'society' it would be killed before birth, and pre-hiring genetic
exams would be used to determine if the productivity of the prospective
employee would outweigh her potential health related costs.  Any activity
that is shown to increase the possibility, however slight, of contracting a
costly disease or injury would be eliminated.  As we see time and again, it
would not matter if there is any proof as long as the item/activity is
currently in  activist disfavor.  Smoking would of course be criminalized, as
well as ingestion of salt, sugar, meat, milk, beer, wine, white flour,
pastries,  in short everything other than a few grains, nuts, and an
occasional vegetable/fruit ("occasional" because only the professional class
serving to the powerful could afford the few that would be available after
the bugs, mice, and other PETA protected critters had their fill).  Other
activities that would be criminalized would be the ownership and operation of
private vehicles, travel in general, gun use and ownership, hunting and
fishing, boating (at least motorized), swimming in anything other than a
chlorinated pool, etc.

   Of course your goal of a healthy human herd of productive low-cost
employees would be and is supported by corporate world, especially the
insurance industry.  Who knows, they may even provide you a grant to
determine how your plan of further enslavement can be implemented.
Yours,
Issodhos