Hierarchy? I'm sorry but what I would gather from that is more or less the opposite: a kind of communitarian equality, if anything. But my first instinct was t

Hierarchy? I'm sorry but what I would gather from that is more or less the opposite: a kind of communitarian equality, if anything. But my first instinct was to think that most people, when asked how long they want to live will have difficulty answering beyond current lifespan because we are instinctively trained to think that '100 = old and decrepit' - even if the question does say something along the lines of '100 but in 'good health''. "for a future in which the suffering and death of aging is banished, all disease controlled through advanced medicine, the vast majority of people still march stolidly towards what they assume to be the same fate as their grandparents [2]. They are conforming." Again I disagree because this utopian future is still essentially an illusion, which most people immediately recognize (they don't live in the tech bubble?), and in reality, 90 is getting pretty old and that's it for today, and probably for the next long while barring any 'big leaps' in tech. Which may happen, but there's no reason to believe they would. Science has not really extended life. All we've done is perfected the conditions in which we live, and have learned out to take care of our bodies well. Like you own a bike and used to run it through the forest, not oil it, parts would fall of. Now we run our bicycles on smooth surfaces, we get checkups, replace parts, oil the wheels. We have not improved bikes, we just extend them more or less towards their current, maximal life span. Please tell me when they can regrow my hair, or do the simplest thing and make the skin on my face 'not sag'. Then we can talk.