5 ms·
Yes, but poor people can't pay. That's why they can't solve anything. Google can spend a billion dollars on this. Multiple billions can be easily spent on this.
by devoply 10y ago
Yes, but poor people can't pay. That's why they can't solve anything. Google can spend a billion dollars on this. Multiple billions can be easily spent on this. And it's a great time for that. So much excessive capital. So many millionaires and billionaires. All going to die. What can scientists do to help them?
- api 10y agoRich people would get this first, but there'd be so much demand that unless there was something intrinsically expensive about a life extension tech (e.g. it required surgical intervention) you'd see geometric decreases in price. Then the patents would expire and it'd get mass produced in India for $0.05/pill.
- kbenson 10y ago> Then the patents would expire and it'd get mass produced in India for $0.05/pill. Forget patents. This is the sort of thing that will flood the black market, and could conceivably be a target for eminent domain. In any case, it will make it out to the public in some manner if it becomes a reality, I'm sure of that.
- striking 10y agoWe're looking for extended life for some people, without being able to guarantee a regular life for all. What a world.
- arithma 10y agoOne is easier than the other I am afraid.
- eli_gottlieb 10y agoNo, ultimately we're looking for unlimited life for everyone. We will not sell anyone to the dark.
- mynameisvlad 10y agoHowever, this technology would ostensibly over time get commoditized and available for everyone, like practically every other piece of technology so far.
- wwweston 10y agoThat's what we'd like to believe about ourselves. But until we're post-scarcity -- as long as other people are competition for limited resources (land, food, water, health care, even attention) -- I wouldn't be too quick to believe it.
- Erik816 10y agoI don't think "regular" is the adjective you are looking for. By definition there will always be lives that are not regular, both positively and negatively.
- DennisP 10y agoOld people are expensive. If the people on Medicare were as healthy as the average 50-year-old, it would basically solve Medicare's long-term funding problem. If it cost, say, $100K every 10 years, it'd be worthwhile to give it to everyone for free. Edit: checked numbers. There are about 40 million Americans 65 or older, and Medicare spends about $600 billion/year, for average annual spending of $15K each.
- HaveCourage 10y ago50% of your lifetime medical cost occur in your last year of life. Old people aren't expensive, unhealthy and nearer death people are expensive. Delaying that last year of life by remaining robust is very profitable.
- krapp 10y agoNot to put too cynical a point on it, but if I were getting paid by the world's rich for a cure for death... the last thing I would want to do is release it if I found it.