6 ms·

Bloodtech. This is... dispiriting. The massive concentration of wealth in a few people is going to fuck up the world. This is just the latest sign.

by Gatsky 8y ago

DoreenMichele 8y ago
Bad Blood 2: The sequel to the Theranos debacle.
- close04 8y ago
  It's only a Theranos sequel if it's a fraud. But even if this is "for real" it's still deeply disturbing. Today... And yet I have to wonder, would future generations see it that way? Was organ transplant considered deeply disturbing 2 centuries ago?
  - awakeasleep 8y ago
    Was there a time when the aged wealthy would buy organs from the poor?
    - close04 8y ago
      Today? Every time since transplants were invented or at least perfected? [0] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-18/desperately-poor-filipinos-sell-kidneys/2409350 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-18/desperately-poor-filip... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/05/the-market-for-human-organs-is-destroying-lives/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/05/...
    - dzdt 8y ago
      There was such a time for teeth. Read about George Washington's dentures. I like The Oatmeal's take embedded in their explorarion of the backfire effect. [1] But you can go on a google run; it was common for upper class gentlemen at that time to use human teeth in dentures, bought from the poor or even forcibly extracted from slaves. [1] http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
      - devchix 8y ago
        Fantine in Les Misérables sold her hair and then her teeth to pay for medicine for Cosette. It was her last recourse for money before falling into prostitution. A detail in a work of fiction, but not a stretch to believe it's drawn from real life.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >And yet I have to wonder, would future generations see it that way? Sometimes we need to have morals that go beyond what a period thinks. Whatever way future generations see some things, they would still be bad. It might not be easy (or possible) to go against one own's era morals, but moral relativity in this sense shouldn't be an argument for the present era ("yeah, we think it's bad now, but in 2500 they might consider it ok, it's all relative").
    - someone454 8y ago
      Homosexuality was considered bad 2 generations ago, are tou saying it should have been fought tooth and nail then?
    - close04 8y ago
      > Whatever way future generations see some things, they would still be bad. That's too absolute for a concept so relative. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Imagine equal right for all people, a concept past generations would have discarded and lunacy. Someone 200 or 2000 years ago might have said "whatever any future generation might say about equality it will still be bad".
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >Someone 200 or 2000 years ago might have said "whatever any future generation might say about equality it will still be bad". Well, the only way your example works is if you ascribe to what I said. Because you imply that those persons were wrong -- and thus that "equal rights for all people" is the correct choice. Not just for now, but for then too -- they just didn't know it. That's kind of what I'm saying too. I can't guarantee that anybody's morals are valid. Or that they will be considered valid in the future. I just say that we shouldn't relativistically lax our morals just because "the future might think differently on this matter". That's the future's problem. Except if its some trivial matter. Some stuff we should consider bad for the ages, even if the ages disagree with us. To answer the dead comment below: "Homosexuality was considered bad 2 generations ago, are [y]ou saying it should have been fought tooth and nail then?" No, I'm not saying this or that particular moral is wrong or that this or that period got it right. Just that it can't be trivially dismissed because it might change or have changed in the past. Obviously one could just as easily reverse the question: "are you saying it was correct for them to consider homosexuality bad 2 generations ago just because those were the morals of their day?". If you say "no, it was bad then too", then you got to my point. Morality might be changing over time, but we should not merely "adapt to the times" but go with what we really think is the best moral option for all ages.
  - chr1 8y ago
    Why is this disturbing at all if it is "for real" (which i agree seems unlikely)? People already donate blood to cure other people, and old age is the deadliest disease possible since it kills in 100% of cases.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      The fear isn’t that it’s unatural, it’s that the long term consequences to society will be bad. Curing the disease of the unlucky few is quite different from allowing the rich to live longer and accumulate more wealth, from a societal standpoint.
      - chr1 8y ago
        > allowing the rich to live longer and accumulate more wealth, from a societal standpoint Accepting this line of reasoning means accepting that there are situations where society is allowed to kill some people for some greater good, which is deeply wrong. The argument also depends on several assumptions about the way this technology will work, which are likely to be wrong (e.g. that price of extending life will never be reduced enough to be available to poorer people, that having more time to learn, won't help poor people to become richer, that reduction of the fraction of resources spent on reproduction won't help society to become more stable and more wealthier). But even the worst case scenario, when everything on earth belongs to old people, is actually good, because it means there is more incentive for other people to go explore other planets and stars!
        village-idiot 8y ago
        > The argument also depends on several assumptions about the way this technology will work, which are likely to be wrong (e.g. that price of extending life will never be reduced enough to be available to poorer people, that having more time to learn, won't help poor people to become richer, that reduction of the fraction of resources spent on reproduction won't help society to become more stable and more wealthier). I think you’re being overly optimistic. First of all, we already have a society where the rich have access to life extending services. The life expectancy gap between the rich and poor is 20 years[0] in the United States. While in theory we absolutely could provide this to the poor and they would probably accumulate wealth and reproduce more slowly, politically and socially I see zero evidence that this would happen. Second, the price for a life extending treatment will be arbitrary. How much do you think a company that can tack 30 years onto your lifespan will charge? Again we could force them to sell cheap, but we can’t prevent ERs for charging $200 for aspirin, the political will just isn’t there. > Accepting this line of reasoning means accepting that there are situations where society is allowed to kill some people for some greater good, which is deeply wrong. A good point. However I’m a utilitarian at heart, if trading the rich only having 80 years keeps us from going into revolution or neufeudalism, I am will to accept that trade, even if I’m in the group who could probably afford said treatments. > But even the worst case scenario, when everything on earth belongs to old people, is actually good, because it means there is more incentive for other people to go explore other planets and stars! Or wealth could concentrate into few hands, and people could start binding themselves to richer patrons to guarantee access to life saving food and medicine, and the world descends into neufeudal torpor. Humanity has killed off massive amounts of itself for dumber reasons, don’t assume that a new tech will lead to your desired outcome just because it’s futuristic. 0. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/may/08/life-expectancy-gap-rich-poor-us-regions-more-than-20-years https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/inequality/...
village-idiot 8y ago
Baby boomers unexpectedly living to their low 80s has massively destabilized the economy of the US and the distribution of both wealth and income. Now imagine if the richest 20% could live to about 130.
tk75x 8y ago
The dystopian society and the crazy stuff ultra rich people do in the novel/show Altered Carbon is a direct result of people living much longer than "natural" which allows the wealth gap to widen to the point where the rich are literally living in the clouds.

Bloodtech. This is... dispiriting. The massive concentration of wealth in a few people is going to fuck up the world. This is just the latest sign.

by Gatsky 8y ago

Bloodtech. This is... dispiriting. The massive concentration of wealth in a few people is going to fuck up the world. This is just the latest sign.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

Bad Blood 2: The sequel to the Theranos debacle.

close04 8y ago
It's only a Theranos sequel if it's a fraud. But even if this is "for real" it's still deeply disturbing. Today... And yet I have to wonder, would future generations see it that way? Was organ transplant considered deeply disturbing 2 centuries ago?
- awakeasleep 8y ago
  Was there a time when the aged wealthy would buy organs from the poor?
  - close04 8y ago
    Today? Every time since transplants were invented or at least perfected? [0] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-18/desperately-poor-filipinos-sell-kidneys/2409350 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-18/desperately-poor-filip... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/05/the-market-for-human-organs-is-destroying-lives/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/05/...
  - dzdt 8y ago
    There was such a time for teeth. Read about George Washington's dentures. I like The Oatmeal's take embedded in their explorarion of the backfire effect. [1] But you can go on a google run; it was common for upper class gentlemen at that time to use human teeth in dentures, bought from the poor or even forcibly extracted from slaves. [1] http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
    - devchix 8y ago
      Fantine in Les Misérables sold her hair and then her teeth to pay for medicine for Cosette. It was her last recourse for money before falling into prostitution. A detail in a work of fiction, but not a stretch to believe it's drawn from real life.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >And yet I have to wonder, would future generations see it that way? Sometimes we need to have morals that go beyond what a period thinks. Whatever way future generations see some things, they would still be bad. It might not be easy (or possible) to go against one own's era morals, but moral relativity in this sense shouldn't be an argument for the present era ("yeah, we think it's bad now, but in 2500 they might consider it ok, it's all relative").
  - someone454 8y ago
    Homosexuality was considered bad 2 generations ago, are tou saying it should have been fought tooth and nail then?
  - close04 8y ago
    > Whatever way future generations see some things, they would still be bad. That's too absolute for a concept so relative. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Imagine equal right for all people, a concept past generations would have discarded and lunacy. Someone 200 or 2000 years ago might have said "whatever any future generation might say about equality it will still be bad".
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >Someone 200 or 2000 years ago might have said "whatever any future generation might say about equality it will still be bad". Well, the only way your example works is if you ascribe to what I said. Because you imply that those persons were wrong -- and thus that "equal rights for all people" is the correct choice. Not just for now, but for then too -- they just didn't know it. That's kind of what I'm saying too. I can't guarantee that anybody's morals are valid. Or that they will be considered valid in the future. I just say that we shouldn't relativistically lax our morals just because "the future might think differently on this matter". That's the future's problem. Except if its some trivial matter. Some stuff we should consider bad for the ages, even if the ages disagree with us. To answer the dead comment below: "Homosexuality was considered bad 2 generations ago, are [y]ou saying it should have been fought tooth and nail then?" No, I'm not saying this or that particular moral is wrong or that this or that period got it right. Just that it can't be trivially dismissed because it might change or have changed in the past. Obviously one could just as easily reverse the question: "are you saying it was correct for them to consider homosexuality bad 2 generations ago just because those were the morals of their day?". If you say "no, it was bad then too", then you got to my point. Morality might be changing over time, but we should not merely "adapt to the times" but go with what we really think is the best moral option for all ages.
- chr1 8y ago
  Why is this disturbing at all if it is "for real" (which i agree seems unlikely)? People already donate blood to cure other people, and old age is the deadliest disease possible since it kills in 100% of cases.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    The fear isn’t that it’s unatural, it’s that the long term consequences to society will be bad. Curing the disease of the unlucky few is quite different from allowing the rich to live longer and accumulate more wealth, from a societal standpoint.
    - chr1 8y ago
      > allowing the rich to live longer and accumulate more wealth, from a societal standpoint Accepting this line of reasoning means accepting that there are situations where society is allowed to kill some people for some greater good, which is deeply wrong. The argument also depends on several assumptions about the way this technology will work, which are likely to be wrong (e.g. that price of extending life will never be reduced enough to be available to poorer people, that having more time to learn, won't help poor people to become richer, that reduction of the fraction of resources spent on reproduction won't help society to become more stable and more wealthier). But even the worst case scenario, when everything on earth belongs to old people, is actually good, because it means there is more incentive for other people to go explore other planets and stars!
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        > The argument also depends on several assumptions about the way this technology will work, which are likely to be wrong (e.g. that price of extending life will never be reduced enough to be available to poorer people, that having more time to learn, won't help poor people to become richer, that reduction of the fraction of resources spent on reproduction won't help society to become more stable and more wealthier). I think you’re being overly optimistic. First of all, we already have a society where the rich have access to life extending services. The life expectancy gap between the rich and poor is 20 years[0] in the United States. While in theory we absolutely could provide this to the poor and they would probably accumulate wealth and reproduce more slowly, politically and socially I see zero evidence that this would happen. Second, the price for a life extending treatment will be arbitrary. How much do you think a company that can tack 30 years onto your lifespan will charge? Again we could force them to sell cheap, but we can’t prevent ERs for charging $200 for aspirin, the political will just isn’t there. > Accepting this line of reasoning means accepting that there are situations where society is allowed to kill some people for some greater good, which is deeply wrong. A good point. However I’m a utilitarian at heart, if trading the rich only having 80 years keeps us from going into revolution or neufeudalism, I am will to accept that trade, even if I’m in the group who could probably afford said treatments. > But even the worst case scenario, when everything on earth belongs to old people, is actually good, because it means there is more incentive for other people to go explore other planets and stars! Or wealth could concentrate into few hands, and people could start binding themselves to richer patrons to guarantee access to life saving food and medicine, and the world descends into neufeudal torpor. Humanity has killed off massive amounts of itself for dumber reasons, don’t assume that a new tech will lead to your desired outcome just because it’s futuristic. 0. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/may/08/life-expectancy-gap-rich-poor-us-regions-more-than-20-years https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/inequality/...

village-idiot 8y ago

Baby boomers unexpectedly living to their low 80s has massively destabilized the economy of the US and the distribution of both wealth and income. Now imagine if the richest 20% could live to about 130.

tk75x 8y ago

The dystopian society and the crazy stuff ultra rich people do in the novel/show Altered Carbon is a direct result of people living much longer than "natural" which allows the wealth gap to widen to the point where the rich are literally living in the clouds.