3 ms·

I don't see how a biotech revolution would bring great change. The immediate potential for biotech is in disease prevention and cure, and to a limited degree,

I don't see how a biotech revolution would bring great change. The immediate potential for biotech is in disease prevention and cure, and to a limited degree, lifespan extension. Cures for diabetes, obesity, dementia, hypertension, COPD, cardiovascular disease, congenital and genetic disorders, various cancers. Possibly even regrowing organs. Cures (and better management) of any or all of these would be life-changing for the sufferers. Of course it has to be attempted. The macro effect on society would be to increase lifespan, and therefore the proportion of old people. Old people tend to be socially conservative, they have all the money, and they vote more than younger people do. Wealthy people obsess about loss and risk avoidance. I foresee an ossification, rule by methuselahs. So life would change less quickly than it does now. NIMBY on steroids.

strgcmc 5y ago
You're completely overlooking the fact that, a rapid demographic shift such as say, doubling life expectancy within 50 years, would lead to massive social upheaval, regardless of voting preferences. There would be huge shortages of nursing homes, care workers, early bird dinner spots, seniors cruises, etc. (sorry, had to throw some jokes in there). Social security benefits would collapse. Retirement age would absolutely have to change, or we'd simply have massive unemployment (imagine if people lived to 120 but couldn't find work for the last 50-60 years of their life). Thinking about voting preferences is really just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Society would either collapse or see massive shifts simply due to physical needs, well before voting preferences became the dominant factor.
WalterBright 5y ago
> I don't see how a biotech revolution would bring great change. For example, vastly more efficient food production. Imagine meat being grown in a petri dish. It would use far, far less resources. The nutritional value could be enhanced. It could taste like the best beef.

strgcmc 5y ago

You're completely overlooking the fact that, a rapid demographic shift such as say, doubling life expectancy within 50 years, would lead to massive social upheaval, regardless of voting preferences. There would be huge shortages of nursing homes, care workers, early bird dinner spots, seniors cruises, etc. (sorry, had to throw some jokes in there). Social security benefits would collapse. Retirement age would absolutely have to change, or we'd simply have massive unemployment (imagine if people lived to 120 but couldn't find work for the last 50-60 years of their life). Thinking about voting preferences is really just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Society would either collapse or see massive shifts simply due to physical needs, well before voting preferences became the dominant factor.

WalterBright 5y ago

> I don't see how a biotech revolution would bring great change. For example, vastly more efficient food production. Imagine meat being grown in a petri dish. It would use far, far less resources. The nutritional value could be enhanced. It could taste like the best beef.