4 ms·

So what you are saying you are anti-progress? Almost everything is first paid for by the rich. That's not a bad thing.

falcolas 6y ago
Anti-aging technology is a bit of a game changer; it would effectively create automatic oligarchies, because the rich and powerful would never die and pass on their power. There is effectively no reward for the rich to make this technology broadly available. There's every incentive to keep their workforces and consumers ignorant and short-lived.
- benlivengood 6y ago
  > There's every incentive to keep their workforces and consumers ignorant and short-lived. This was also the attitude in the 1700s and 1800s there were several revolutionary wars to fix it. Anti-aging treatments won't stop bullets.
  - yowlingcat 6y ago
    Not to mention stakes and, ahem, garlic.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  The rich and powerful create oligarchies now. Even if the problem would be worse with anti-aging I'd trade not-dying for more powerful oligarchs. I think it might make things more egalitarian. A hard working genius born to poverty only has 80 years to work their way into the upper echelons. Removing senescence means such people will have more time to rise to elite positions and demonstrate track records of competence and merit. I don't agree that anti-aging would be restricted to the richest. One simple reason is that anyone with the know-how could make vast wealth by making anti-aging available to the masses.
  - coliveira 6y ago
    Who said you'll have access to the life-prolonging tech? Parent's comment is exactly that once having this technology, the rich will only share it for such a high price that only other rich people would afford.
  - coliveira 6y ago
    > A hard working genius born to poverty only has 80 years to work their way Social Darwinism? You can do it today, just stop providing medical care for the poor... wait, this is already happening in the US.
    - Thorrez 6y ago
      ALittleLight seems to be saying we should give poor people more time to develop their talents. Taking away healthcare from them would provide them will less time to develop their talents.
  - Dirlewanger 6y ago
    >I think it might make things more egalitarian. We heard that with the Internet too. And 25 years later: while certain metrics like poverty and standard of living have improved globally, things have gotten worse in Western countries. Why do you think something as Holy Grail-esque as anti-aging tech will be any different?
- orborde 6y ago
  > There is effectively no reward for the rich to make this technology broadly available. What about reduced training costs because you can keep your existing expert staff instead of needing to constantly hire fresh but clueless youngsters?
  - throw1234651234 6y ago
    I can't think of a single senior-engineer position that someone can't train for in 5 years. Maybe doctors, directors, and top research scientists.
    - jjk166 6y ago
      You've never seen a job posting asking for more than 5 years of experience?
      - throw1234651234 6y ago
        I think very few people grow significantly in their field after the first 5 years.
    - orborde 6y ago
      Okay, so that's like 5/40 of your workforce that's in training at any particular moment, right? That's not a trivial cost.

Anti-aging technology is a bit of a game changer; it would effectively create automatic oligarchies, because the rich and powerful would never die and pass on their power. There is effectively no reward for the rich to make this technology broadly available. There's every incentive to keep their workforces and consumers ignorant and short-lived.

benlivengood 6y ago
> There's every incentive to keep their workforces and consumers ignorant and short-lived. This was also the attitude in the 1700s and 1800s there were several revolutionary wars to fix it. Anti-aging treatments won't stop bullets.
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  Not to mention stakes and, ahem, garlic.
ALittleLight 6y ago
The rich and powerful create oligarchies now. Even if the problem would be worse with anti-aging I'd trade not-dying for more powerful oligarchs. I think it might make things more egalitarian. A hard working genius born to poverty only has 80 years to work their way into the upper echelons. Removing senescence means such people will have more time to rise to elite positions and demonstrate track records of competence and merit. I don't agree that anti-aging would be restricted to the richest. One simple reason is that anyone with the know-how could make vast wealth by making anti-aging available to the masses.
- coliveira 6y ago
  Who said you'll have access to the life-prolonging tech? Parent's comment is exactly that once having this technology, the rich will only share it for such a high price that only other rich people would afford.
- coliveira 6y ago
  > A hard working genius born to poverty only has 80 years to work their way Social Darwinism? You can do it today, just stop providing medical care for the poor... wait, this is already happening in the US.
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    ALittleLight seems to be saying we should give poor people more time to develop their talents. Taking away healthcare from them would provide them will less time to develop their talents.
- Dirlewanger 6y ago
  >I think it might make things more egalitarian. We heard that with the Internet too. And 25 years later: while certain metrics like poverty and standard of living have improved globally, things have gotten worse in Western countries. Why do you think something as Holy Grail-esque as anti-aging tech will be any different?
orborde 6y ago
> There is effectively no reward for the rich to make this technology broadly available. What about reduced training costs because you can keep your existing expert staff instead of needing to constantly hire fresh but clueless youngsters?
- throw1234651234 6y ago
  I can't think of a single senior-engineer position that someone can't train for in 5 years. Maybe doctors, directors, and top research scientists.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    You've never seen a job posting asking for more than 5 years of experience?
    - throw1234651234 6y ago
      I think very few people grow significantly in their field after the first 5 years.
  - orborde 6y ago
    Okay, so that's like 5/40 of your workforce that's in training at any particular moment, right? That's not a trivial cost.