European Union Deserved the Nobel Peace Prize


Today all over the world we hear the voices of indignation and irritation about the European Union’s Nobel Peace Prize. These voices belong to ingramuses.

European Union is the greatest political achievement of people of the Earth. For thousands of years the European nations were ruthlessly exterminating each other. Just 70 years ago dozens of millions of people were dying at war, the factories were burning people alive non-stop, day and night. People hated outlanders. Today were are witnessing a completely different situation: the boundaries are erazed, we feel absolutely safe in another country, we can get a job, there is one save currency in the European Union, which is very convenient.

The Eropean Union is an example for other countries in the policy of benevolence, humanitarism, protection of civil rights and providing opportunities. Of course, not everything goes smoothly and thing are quite complicated now. And it’s not only about the economical crisis, but about the general setback of panhuman, liberal, democratic values all over the world. Namely the EU is the island of liberty, ideals of good and justice, that stands against the waves of religious fundamentalists and autocratic regimes, that are willing to submerge the whole world into the sea of blood, pain and suffering.

The European Union deserved the Nobel Prize, because it’s heard work of many people in favor of peace and friendship among the nations. From my part, I wish human life becamee more  and more valuable and the efforts of the European governments were dedicated to radical life extension. To do that more attention to studying the fundamental mechanisms of aging, development of regenerative medicine and allying Artificial Intelligence to biological tasks are needed.

Advertisements

10 Comments

Filed under Policy

10 responses to “European Union Deserved the Nobel Peace Prize

  1. While the EU is an accomplishment in economic scale and efficiency (for instance reducing a dozen currencies to one, or streamlining cross-border trade within the EU), there is a severe drawback of egalitarianism and central control.

    Only those who fit for it will be immortal. I doubt the low hanging fruit of eliminating our cell’s programmed self-destruct mechanism will be either implemented or even be significantly forwarded by the EU governmental organization.

  2. I still believe the EU is first of all an accomplishment in humanitarism, rather than in economy.

    Of course, at first the therapies of life extension will be quite expensive, but the cost will drop fast, the same way it did with mobile phones and genome sequencing, therefore allowing everyone else to benefit from the technological advances. I think you are a a little bit too pessimistic.

    • From your mouth to God’s ear madam. Any major accomplishment in longevity will run smack dab into humanitarian concerns, because any cradle to grave benefits will be contrary to funding and implementing “immortality” treatments (I don’t agree with this – keeping alive and healthy longer our most accomplished and talented “builders” is very important to increasing our wealth and national security). Let me point to multiple articles now suggesting the insurance industry (a large piece of the rock) is very concerned about the trend toward longevity, and that is only the tip of the iceberg.

      Immediate budgetary concerns mean choosing between taking care of those who want to live “normal” and “healthy” lives, and those who want to double-dip (actually infinitely-dip) the (now) limited resources. You will see this argument made a lot: ought the EU fund longevity research (and especially implementation) or ought they instead pay for the “normal” services. I’ve made this statement before: the most likely source of breakthrough (and implementation) funding is plutocrats, not bureaucrats.

  3. Dani

    Brad, I think you do not acknowledge what longevity means for a conglomerate of nations whose ever diminishing birth rate its putting its economic growth at risk. According to many EU statistical projection, The European Union will start to have a shrinking population in 2050, even if high levels of immigration are taken into account. Birth rates are falling throughout the world, and the kind of skilled workforce we will need to maintain our economies is not easy to obtain in many developing nations. In my opinion, these therapies are not being pursued so much in the EU because there is very little awareness of its feasibility and length of time and money it would really take. Politicians do not tend to be acquainted with the world of biogerontoloy and basic research in general, si it is easy to see why this is not happening very fast.

    Furthermore, you could use different terms when you refer about the ideas that you try to convey using brackets. Keeping people in state of increasingly ill state is far more expensive than using technology to reverse those illnesses (just think about the cost of vaccines and new drugs, and compare those to the cost of disease if left untreated) . Living a healthy and normal today will start looking like leading a very risky and thoughtless life when these technologies are implemented. It is just a question of perspective. Unfortunately, we will have to change these attitudes on our own if we want to hasten its development. But it is definitely something we have to try as much as we can.

    • First, the birth rate decline in industrialized countries is a real concern, but primarily because the social services needed for the elderly have to be paid for by multiple workers. Longevity just kicks the can down the road, it doesn’t guarantee decreased medical costs, and virtually assures increased “social security” costs. Second, quibbling about grammar and punctuation is trivial. Finally, politicians need not be acquainted with science (yes, they are rationally ignorant), because their primary and overriding need is to mirror the opinions of the voters and their campaign contributors. People always conflate what ought to be with what is. What I am saying is that FUNCTIONALLY, the average man (and therefore politicians) simply doesn’t care about longevity, they are much concerned with more short term. OTH, you only need one super-rich person to fund a private project that has much more chance of success.

      Let me frame it another way: do you think it is more moral for countries to help their citizens with their basic needs first, or to help them with more esoteric longer term ones?

  4. @ Maria:

    We agree there is some ignorance on display, at least (not by us, of course :)). And that life extension is, on balance, an intrinsic good.

    @ Brad Arnold:

    You are looking at healthy life extension in a misleading context. Try this; in what way is developing a treatment regimen for the basic health needs of ordinary people in any way esoteric? Don’t conflate the innovative methodology (stem cell therapy, etc) with the historic normative standard of health care (corrective treatment of particular symptoms of disease).

    Cancer is no longer a presumptive death sentence; why should cellular degeneration be any different?

    • Mr Brown, your suggestion to not conflate the innovative with the normative is begging the question, and beside the point. Innovation in medicine is normal up to a point and then becomes superlative – with the limited resources available to the state, I was suggesting private sources of funds for cutting edge research. Furthermore, whether it is normative or innovative research, research on cellular degeneration can be greatly accelerated using private funds.

      • @Brad Arnold

        It’s tempting to argue the question being begged, but I actually agree with your point about increasing privately funded research. To a point.

        I submit that organizing a financial structure (corporation, LLP, foundation, etc) that allows single individuals of modest financial means to participate has the potential to raise funds beyond the supportable levels of any potential single investor. I think you will find that your hypothetical “average man” will become much more interested in “esoteric longer term” research that has a personal financial gain attached to it. Tens of millions of people are quite familiar with the 401k retirement investment concept; such an investment into life extension research by them at a regular rate of US $1/week ought to get us where we hope to be (and more realistically, 10X that rate).

        Who knows, they might even be able to afford to live that long as a result too. I would imagine that many potential voters would have a certain influence on the political leadership of the day and place as well.

        • That is what I am arguing against: the efficiency of either state or group control over effective longevity science. Both are egalitarian, whereas my point is that elitist is best. I do agree with your point about medical care that retards senescence being of universal benefit, but what I see is the urge to follow egalitarian models because they are thought of as “good” rather than the much better standard of evaluation, that of functionally better. Unfortunately, elitist is thought of as “bad,” but I think it is functionally better, and therefore the best model to pursue with our limited time. By the way, judging from my wide ranging market testing, egalitarian and longevity are not compatible, meaning (at least right now) the group consensus is against extreme longevity.

  5. mitchellporter

    Commentary from someone who knows about political fragmentation:

    http://jasminatesanovic.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/reasons-to-stay-together/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s