I agree entirely. It is often useful, though, to consider ideal limiting cases when trying to understand how systems change as they move in that direction (even though the limit can never be reached). My point is that increasing information, e.g., of customer's genes and the risks they imply, undercuts the value of insurance in a market that is free to use that information. Ideally, it destroys the very value of the product. This runs contrary to the foundations of market fundamentalism.

Besides, the argument is directed to the wonkish wing of a group that plans already the glory of wingéd lunar flight.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.