3 ms·

Even if immortality were to become reality, what incentive could there be to cure the ill? Perhaps I'm just unimaginative, however I can't really fathom a worl

Even if immortality were to become reality, what incentive could there be to cure the ill? Perhaps I'm just unimaginative, however I can't really fathom a world in which it would make economical sense to cure the ill rather than simply prevent people getting sick. Economically those with illnesses and/or genetic conditions (myself included) unfortunately seem like a bit of a lost cause.

waterhouse 7y ago
Surely restoring a skilled 58-year-old with decades of experience to full health is much faster and cheaper than making an entirely new human and training them to the same level. As for preventing people getting sick—well, from what I've heard, a significant reason older people are more likely to get cancer is that their immune system and their body's ability to repair itself are weaker (and one part of cancer is DNA damage), so it seems like the most likely approaches to preventing cancer are also going to help with curing other illnesses.
leppr 7y ago
I think more than an external incentive, it would provide an incentive for workers to be able to afford their own immortality, prior to debilitating diseases.
lucian1900 7y ago
How about we just provide everyone with healthcare, regardless of their economic value? There is more to life than money. There is more to humanity than capitalism.
- Benjamin_Dobell 7y ago
  At what point should hugely disproportionate healthcare be provided to select individuals at the expense of everyone else'e healthcare? I have Sarcoidosis, a genetic condition that means my immune system literally attacks my own body. It's extremely rare. Should I demand that a hugely disproportionate amount of money be spent to cure me so that I can enjoy this theoretical immortality? Seems a bit selfish. That money could presumably be spent to benefit many more lives beyond my own. This isn't pro-capatilism reasoning, it's just being realistic and reasonable. EDIT: To clarify I'm not advocating that we don't invest money in treating Sarcoidosis (or other rare conditions); right now it's much more realistic and more likely to cause immediate benefit than immortality moonshots! However, down the track perhaps the best investment would instead be prevention in newborns. In which case I'll miss out. A shame for me, but if that happens to be the approach that's going to have the best net positive outcome for society, then go for it.
  - lucian1900 7y ago
    If scarcity was an actual issue, we could collectively decide what a fair distribution of that scarce resource would be. Few things beyond a lottery would be considered fair by most, but we can try. However, we live under conditions of extreme supply for many things, including most factors that would inhibit healthcare. We rarely need to choose.

waterhouse 7y ago

Surely restoring a skilled 58-year-old with decades of experience to full health is much faster and cheaper than making an entirely new human and training them to the same level. As for preventing people getting sick—well, from what I've heard, a significant reason older people are more likely to get cancer is that their immune system and their body's ability to repair itself are weaker (and one part of cancer is DNA damage), so it seems like the most likely approaches to preventing cancer are also going to help with curing other illnesses.

leppr 7y ago

I think more than an external incentive, it would provide an incentive for workers to be able to afford their own immortality, prior to debilitating diseases.

lucian1900 7y ago

How about we just provide everyone with healthcare, regardless of their economic value? There is more to life than money. There is more to humanity than capitalism.

Benjamin_Dobell 7y ago
At what point should hugely disproportionate healthcare be provided to select individuals at the expense of everyone else'e healthcare? I have Sarcoidosis, a genetic condition that means my immune system literally attacks my own body. It's extremely rare. Should I demand that a hugely disproportionate amount of money be spent to cure me so that I can enjoy this theoretical immortality? Seems a bit selfish. That money could presumably be spent to benefit many more lives beyond my own. This isn't pro-capatilism reasoning, it's just being realistic and reasonable. EDIT: To clarify I'm not advocating that we don't invest money in treating Sarcoidosis (or other rare conditions); right now it's much more realistic and more likely to cause immediate benefit than immortality moonshots! However, down the track perhaps the best investment would instead be prevention in newborns. In which case I'll miss out. A shame for me, but if that happens to be the approach that's going to have the best net positive outcome for society, then go for it.
- lucian1900 7y ago
  If scarcity was an actual issue, we could collectively decide what a fair distribution of that scarce resource would be. Few things beyond a lottery would be considered fair by most, but we can try. However, we live under conditions of extreme supply for many things, including most factors that would inhibit healthcare. We rarely need to choose.