Wednesday, February 16, 2005
The Ultimate Social Security Solution!
So, you're not happy with any of the SS reform ideas being offered? You think they are all too shortsighted and lack a really innovative 21st Century vision? Well, then check out Glen Reynolds Ultimate Solution, or as he calls it at TCS: Tech Central Station - Real Social Security Reform.
As you might expect for a really ambitious proposal, the ultimate solution is "Let's get rid of Social Security. And let's do it by making sure people live so long that the idea of "retirement" will become largely meaningless." Of course, Mr. Reynolds is extremely prolific as both commentator and law professor; and for him, the concept of "relaxing in retirement" may well be anathema.
Then, again, he may have found a great way to focus attention on a potential major national technology initiative : diverting a small percentage of retirement or medical entitlement funds into aging research. The idea being that a significant long-term research investment will yield dramatic results downstream in our ability to live more fully for longer total life spans.
Are the biomedical sciences, biotechnology and nonotechnology at the right stage for large investment? Do we know which aspects to fund now or later? How much should be invested and how to balance private vs public investment and control? I can't answer those questions. Answering those questions is the technology policy part about How to proceed. Answering the questions about Whether and How Much/Fast to proceed is the social policy part. And everyone gets to voice an opinion on that. Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for some really Big thinking on a big problem.
As you might expect for a really ambitious proposal, the ultimate solution is "Let's get rid of Social Security. And let's do it by making sure people live so long that the idea of "retirement" will become largely meaningless." Of course, Mr. Reynolds is extremely prolific as both commentator and law professor; and for him, the concept of "relaxing in retirement" may well be anathema.
Then, again, he may have found a great way to focus attention on a potential major national technology initiative : diverting a small percentage of retirement or medical entitlement funds into aging research. The idea being that a significant long-term research investment will yield dramatic results downstream in our ability to live more fully for longer total life spans.
Are the biomedical sciences, biotechnology and nonotechnology at the right stage for large investment? Do we know which aspects to fund now or later? How much should be invested and how to balance private vs public investment and control? I can't answer those questions. Answering those questions is the technology policy part about How to proceed. Answering the questions about Whether and How Much/Fast to proceed is the social policy part. And everyone gets to voice an opinion on that. Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for some really Big thinking on a big problem.
