2 ms·

Probably controversial here but as far as I can see correct: This seems like a shortcut to hell on earth. Who do you think will have the means to pay for this

Probably controversial here but as far as I can see correct: This seems like a shortcut to hell on earth. Who do you think will have the means to pay for this first? It won't be the saints, it will be the greediest ones. So we (or rather out descendants) would probably be stuck with a ruling class of demigods. Why? 1. They were already pretty well off (since they are the ones who can pay for this treatment in the first place. 2. Now they suddenly also have all the time they want and need. 3. They will now have generations to build alliances etc. Within three generations no normal person has a chance anymore. Also for many of those persons I guess it will become nightmarish after a while: the though of dying from a car crash at age 100 probably feels much worse if you are planning to live forever than if you know your lifespan is lifespan.

faluzure 6y ago
Most things go to the wealthy first, but usually it's worse quality and very rapidly becomes democratized and improved. Consider how great life was 100 years ago for the wealthy compared to the average person today. I would definitely prefer air travel and computers to being wealthy but stuck in the past. Almost every technology has gotten much better when it becomes mainstream. If treatments become available, the pressure to make it available to everyone will be immense. Consider how much of a government budget goes to health care and how much productivity and resources are wasted on those who have exited the workforce due to age. It will be economic and political suicide not to ensure everyone gets access to anti-aging treatments. As for a ruling class, the problem exists with or without anti-aging treatments. We're already moving to a world where more wealth is concentrated with fewer people. The solution to this is to demand taxation on wealth and enforce it globally.
- eitland 6y ago
  The very nature of this (preventing death from aging) means that if everything else stays constant, populations will grow since fewer people dies. I can think of ways around this, but none that I want to recommend, and I never hear proponents of longevity research mention it.

faluzure 6y ago

Most things go to the wealthy first, but usually it's worse quality and very rapidly becomes democratized and improved. Consider how great life was 100 years ago for the wealthy compared to the average person today. I would definitely prefer air travel and computers to being wealthy but stuck in the past. Almost every technology has gotten much better when it becomes mainstream. If treatments become available, the pressure to make it available to everyone will be immense. Consider how much of a government budget goes to health care and how much productivity and resources are wasted on those who have exited the workforce due to age. It will be economic and political suicide not to ensure everyone gets access to anti-aging treatments. As for a ruling class, the problem exists with or without anti-aging treatments. We're already moving to a world where more wealth is concentrated with fewer people. The solution to this is to demand taxation on wealth and enforce it globally.

eitland 6y ago
The very nature of this (preventing death from aging) means that if everything else stays constant, populations will grow since fewer people dies. I can think of ways around this, but none that I want to recommend, and I never hear proponents of longevity research mention it.