I'm all for bashing progress, but come on. Neither you nor I believe in the Gross National Happiness Index.

I believe Europe was a better place a generation ago and so on back to at least Magna Carta.

I know. But don't you have a real problem with the idea that Britains high point was '76? And you can't possibly think that the right metric for judging a cultural peak is something called the Gross National Happiness Index.

Sadly, even Maggie couldn't save them. The 20th Century was a disaster for Britain from start to finish.

Yesterday at the produce stand I ran into a friend I hadn't seen for a year. I thought he had died, since he was really sick for a long time.

Turns out he went to the Mainland and got a new heart.

We exchanged notes. If there had not been progress, we'd both be dead.

With all due respect: So what? I realize that all you care about is yourself, so your life continuing matters more than the society you'll leave to the next generation, but who is that good for other than you?

One factor: the richer the society, the more activists it supports who tell everyone how terrible everything is, and the more time everyone has to watch TV report on the activists telling everyone how terrible everything is.

Another factor: when times are tough ('30s, '40s), people tend to grit their teeth and accept that everyone is suffering. When times are good, they ask "Why aren't I getting as rich as those guys?"

When times are good, they ask "Why aren't I getting as rich as those guys?"

And the people who are doing well, but feel guilty about it for some reason, are willing to believe it when they are told that that their good times are at the expense of the less fortunate.

Haven't we humans always risen in the worst of times and fallen in the best. When will we ever learn to handle prosperity? I'm afraid never; that's the failure of utopianism: to not recognize reality. It's the struggle that creates noble response. That is, in those with the seed of nobility within. That seed isn't genetic, it's ... er ... take it from here O.J.

If they had said 1876, they would have been more believable.

Yes, my house, car and family vacations all left me sad and morose, but since I learned water quality has improved I hum ditties all day long.

What Genecis said. No purpose, no happiness.

I lived in England from 1981 to 84, and again from 88-92.

The first period was just when Maggie had gotten into office, and Labour strife was the order of the day. There was a huge improvement--in all ways--in England over that period, and any report that tells you otherwise has some sort of axe to grind.

OJ:

With all due respect, Harry's and his friends continued survival are a boon to their friends and family. Never mind the erudition he has brought to this blog. Should you ever get some life threatening illness, I presume you will forego modern medicine.

Depends what it is--know anyone with a new heart? They tend to consume millions of dollars of health care, impoverish their families, etc., all so they can live an extra couple years. I'd hope I'd be reasonable enough not to do that, but I'm likely just as selfish as Harry and his friend. That's why such options should be denied to us.

In 1974 I was on a business trip to London and experienced a few "typical" work days accompanying different levels of employees in the field and at their HQ; all part of a large International Corp. The concern discussed the most was the fact they hadn't had increases in salary for years and could not because of government wage controls (as part of a national price control program). Perhaps 1976 was the year they eased those controls. I remember resigning a low level job for a British firm in N.Y. many years previous for the same reason; their govt. controls included overseas operations. The company had provided some perq.s buried in bookeeping for me but they were limited. So those controls apparently had long life and certainly had a depressing effect on anyone living under them. Perhaps they were lifted in 1976. I suppose The British didn't believe Adam Smith in those days. Probably still don't.

Well, if you wouldn't behave any differently, have the grace not to lecture other people.

I'm glad I lived long enough to see my children grow up, and I believe they are, too.

That wouldn't have happened without darwinism and modern medicine, so I call that progress.

Harry:

Few have such grace, which is why we shouldn't have such choices.

According to that theory, you could end up bleeding to death from a paper cut.

oj,

"we shouldn't have such choices"?

What is it you object to -- the idea that we can save lives, or the idea that it costs too much to save some lives?

The first complaint would imply that you are secretly feeling guilty about having had vaccinations against lethal childhood diseases. The latter complaint would imply that your objections to heart transplantation would vanish if it became inexpensive enough. The first implication makes you look like a roaring ass. The latter implication *should* make you want to see more economic progress so that regenerative medicine can become as inexpensive and common as vaccines and antibiotics are now.

You are not serving your God by sourly wishing other people dead. Please at least have the grace to see that. Thank you in advance.

Erich/Harry:

Everyone wants their friends and loved ones to live as long as possible. That is a very noble, human impulse. But the fact that I would pray and climb mountains to keep an aged parent going does not mean that it is therefore good for society to make a priority of ensuring that everyone live as long as possible. They are two separate issues.

Erich:

yes to the ass part--I think it's good that we die

Harry:

A Romanov could.

Erich:

Well said.

OJ:

Which choices shouldn't we have? Anti-biotics? Vaccinations? Dialysis? Transplants? Everything that is hard or expensive now?

Peter: I don't think we are talking about living as long as possible, only about living out our alloted three score and ten as much as possible.

Jeff:

Transplants, except for the very young. Any bioengineering. Cloning. Etc.

A transplant for the very young will be much more expensive than a transplant for somebody older.

Please be consistent.

Jeff/Harry:

C'mon, you know very well we are taking about seniors, not kids, and that it isn't about money Don't play games. You can deconstruct all you want but it won't make the issues go away.

Stopping Medicare 6 months before death would save most of the money spent on the program without dramatically effecting either the length or quality of life.

There is one little problem, though . . .

I thought we were talking about the f****** British. While you all are shooting the sh!t, the Empire is going to hell.

From what I understand younger kids have considerably higher survival rates and greatly increased life expectancies. If not, ban them entirely.

Peter, I don't very well know we are talking about seniors -- whatever that means.

I'm talking about me -- I'm 57 -- and my friend with the new heart, who is about my age. He is hoping, I expect for another 15, 20 years.

As I get it, Orrin is miffed about the expense, not the outcome. But its the aftercare that runs up the costs, and 60 years of aftercare runs up the bill.

oj,

"I think it's good that we die"

Jesus wept, at the death of Lazarus. I guess he wasn't as smart as you.

Erich:

That's the point of the New Testament--Jesus (God) was not as smart as we as regards what it means to be mortal. But He learned at the moment when He despaired on the Cross. He then died willingly.

I guess you can get Scripture to confess anything if you torture it enough, but I find that hard to square with your previously stated disbelief that Jesus was a deity.

Jesus was God.

Harry:

I wasn't aware it required any particular amount of torture.

David:

Quite right.

Jeff:

It did. That's why He had to experience what we go through. Even God had an epiphany.

I was talking about the Bible. I didn't realize one could torture it.

Other than metaphorically, that is.

We tortured Him, why wouldn't we torture His book?