Improving individual survival rate

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone working on improving the general survival rate of individual humans?

If you were CEO of a corporation tasked to keep any of a million individuals of age 25-35 from dying or from ending up captive for more than 10% of their life, how would you go about it? If any of them dies or is held captive for too long, it is game over. More points, the longer you can keep the challenge going and you are not allowed to keep any of them captive yourself, though the government may do so if they commit a crime. Your corporation has a net worth of 20 billion. Just assume it's all liquid, you're just starting out.

Liquidate the corporation and give the money out to impoverished womyn. Fewer corporations benefits everyone, people know their own needs better than some random CEO, and lack of financial freedom imperils many womyn.

You should be glad that the recent innovators and pioneers don't share this kind of attitude. Otherwise, not only would the women be even more impoverished and oppressed, but you would also have no computer to make this post.


As for the OP's question, I think a way to go about this is to first set priorities straight.
Since those who are sick are more likely to die, and those who are impulsive due to one reason or another (often due to an underlying mental illness) or impoverished are likely to commit crimes, I would address these issues first.

A good way to address impoverishment is to obviously provide at least some basic income that would lift these people out of misery.
However, apart from that, impulsiveness can play a huge role in crime. So if I would know that some part of the population keeps committing serious crimes (such as murder or seriously injuring others) over and over, even after rehabilitation, I would probably resort to putting them on a class of medication called "major tranquillizers", which would make them sedated and unlikely to commit further crimes. They would still be able to perform basic everyday tasks, but they would be too physically weak, and their thinking would be too clouded, to commit any further crimes (in most cases).

As for those who are sick, one obviously has to provide them with treatment. But I would set some funds aside to develop novel technologies which could treat serious illnesses. For example, I would probably invest into research and development of software-based emulations of artificial neural networks which would function similarly to real neural networks. I would then see if they could be integrated into some neural systems which are crucial for things such as homeostasis, in order to be able to have more control over the systems vital to health, and thus correct some health-related issues.
I would probably also set aside another part of money in order to develop advanced software-based diagnosis systems, which would make very accurate diagnoses and prescribe appropriate treatment with little human intervention, and based on a rational algorithmic calculation.

Hell, three out of every hundred in my generation are autistic. One in a thousand of those three know about it. Let's see, what would make a difference?

All you need to do is to look at some Darwin Awards videos to learn that there are too many idiots that will make that challenge impossible.

-"Oh look at that stick of dynamite, i wonder if i can contain the explosion by sticking it up my butt"? "Lets film the whole thing and put it on youtube"...

Millions are working on it and successfully too. Since the turn of the 20 th century expected life span in industrial nations has increased from about 50 years to the high 70's.