It's one thing to correct incentives in order to (at minimum) not cause public degeneration, it's another to argue along the lines of the transhumanist. With any sort of half-baked transhumanism (it's all half baked), it's likely you'll just reintroduce incentives which have negative medium and long term consequences on the population themselves.
I'm not particularly against supplementation, but the argument for it should start from an anti-liberal (i.e. anti-transhuman) perspective, or it's likely not well thought out, at least not enough to allow it to be incentivized institutionally. Those in rightful power (not our subversive set of elites) should determine in which ways it's permissible for organizations to incentivize the population to supplement their natural bodies, and should not allow policies which are needlessly and clearly harmful on the population level. This isn't a comment on individual choice or judgement, or T3 in particular.
The drunk driving bit smells like the classic twitter hot take. Spicy and wakes you up, but maybe it doesn't belong in apple pie.
Beyond those things, good article. Civil rights mentality applied to insurance, as with anything else, is nothing but a net loss. Virtue suffers when those who are virtuous, and have deep reasons to be virtuous with one another, aren't allowed to freely associate, which includes the right to exclude those who aren't up to their standards judged by efficient and effective criteria that are not limited by retrograde sentiments of equality, racial or otherwise.
It would make sense that if your body is running in good order (euthyroid) then your mental acuity would also be in good order. This is why cost-sharing rganizations like MediShare give good discounts for members who are in shape and don't engage in risky behavior. Its old fashioned good stewardship that lowers overall costs. IMO, Responsibilty/ownership mitigates risk much better than insurance.
It's one thing to correct incentives in order to (at minimum) not cause public degeneration, it's another to argue along the lines of the transhumanist. With any sort of half-baked transhumanism (it's all half baked), it's likely you'll just reintroduce incentives which have negative medium and long term consequences on the population themselves.
I'm not particularly against supplementation, but the argument for it should start from an anti-liberal (i.e. anti-transhuman) perspective, or it's likely not well thought out, at least not enough to allow it to be incentivized institutionally. Those in rightful power (not our subversive set of elites) should determine in which ways it's permissible for organizations to incentivize the population to supplement their natural bodies, and should not allow policies which are needlessly and clearly harmful on the population level. This isn't a comment on individual choice or judgement, or T3 in particular.
The drunk driving bit smells like the classic twitter hot take. Spicy and wakes you up, but maybe it doesn't belong in apple pie.
Beyond those things, good article. Civil rights mentality applied to insurance, as with anything else, is nothing but a net loss. Virtue suffers when those who are virtuous, and have deep reasons to be virtuous with one another, aren't allowed to freely associate, which includes the right to exclude those who aren't up to their standards judged by efficient and effective criteria that are not limited by retrograde sentiments of equality, racial or otherwise.
It would make sense that if your body is running in good order (euthyroid) then your mental acuity would also be in good order. This is why cost-sharing rganizations like MediShare give good discounts for members who are in shape and don't engage in risky behavior. Its old fashioned good stewardship that lowers overall costs. IMO, Responsibilty/ownership mitigates risk much better than insurance.
Nothing to do with insurance:
I would imagine that the US Army/Marine Corp have done plenty of studies to improve reaction time, specific to infantry tactics.