I'm calling it smug because all this argument is doing is making hypothetical dystopian sci-fi statements with no base in reality. If you actually take a look a

I'm calling it smug because all this argument is doing is making hypothetical dystopian sci-fi statements with no base in reality. If you actually take a look at the reality, you quickly realize it's nearly impossible to find these cases unless you're watching a sci-fi movie. Any technology that has potential to do good for the humanity will eventually be shared with the masses if it exists. For example, RSA and Diffie-Hellman algorithm--arguably two of the most important technological inventions of the 20th century--were originally invented by government secret agencies but kept from the public for many years before being "rediscovered" by some other people later and made available to the public. And this was even before the wide-spread of the Internet. It's becoming increasingly difficult to keep things from the public. Unix was kept away from the public by being super expensive, and Linux came along to made it completely free. Wikileaks came along and made classified information no longer classified, giving more power to the public. Drug companies which charge tons of money to people (see martin shkreli) get slammed and hated in public, giving incentive to upstarts that try to be more transparent and ethical as a marketing strategy. The only place where information is kept from the public is dystopian sci-fi films. Unless you truly think this hypothetical immortality technology can be kept completely private from the public FOREVER, what you're basically saying is "Only the rich will have access to the technology initially, and that's not fair, so we should ban the technology."