3 ms·

But given that a universal cure for aging necessarily requires universal distribution of that cure, isn't it worth asking if you're putting the cart in front of

by kiba 5y ago

But given that a universal cure for aging necessarily requires universal distribution of that cure, isn't it worth asking if you're putting the cart in front of the horse here? Once you have the effective cure, it will likely be economically a no-brainer to implement, because a whole lot of illness of old age will just go away. It's essentially a self-funding cure that drastically reduce the cost of healthcare. However, a cure for aging will not be solved tomorrow, maybe not even a decade. It is a long term investment. The solution to the homeless isn't economically complicated. It doesn't require us to keep at a problem for ten years. It is strictly a matter of political will. It isn't even a matter of practical concerns, because we live right now is unsustainable economically and financially.

dorchadas 5y ago
> Once you have the effective cure, it will likely be economically a no-brainer to implement, because a whole lot of illness of old age will just go away. It's essentially a self-funding cure that drastically reduce the cost of healthcare. Sure, it might be economically a no-brainer, but I don't see this happening. Why would the people in positions of power to implement this give it to the masses when they can have it and keep their power forever while the plebs have to continue to age and die?
danShumway 5y ago
> Once you have the effective cure, it will likely be economically a no-brainer to implement, because a whole lot of illness of old age will just go away. It's essentially a self-funding cure that drastically reduce the cost of healthcare. Okay, but don't you see the disconnect here? Because we don't even have good preventative care right now in the US, and that is also economically a no-brainer. Being economically advantageous overall turns out to be not enough of an incentive to introduce political change. So you have this theory that once death is solved, naturally it will be in everyone's best interest to distribute the cure, but that doesn't match up with what we see in the world today. Again, going back to homelessness, if this isn't economically complicated, and we still haven't solved it, that to me suggests that it's not going to be simple in the future to distribute a cure for aging, even if you're right about the incentives. Figuring out how to bridge that gap between economic incentive and political will might be a giant, equally difficult problem to solve. Doesn't it worry you that fixing these kinds of problems today would clearly reduce overall health care costs on the system and yet the problems still exist? How are you so confident that aging will be different?

by kiba 5y ago

dorchadas 5y ago

> Once you have the effective cure, it will likely be economically a no-brainer to implement, because a whole lot of illness of old age will just go away. It's essentially a self-funding cure that drastically reduce the cost of healthcare. Sure, it might be economically a no-brainer, but I don't see this happening. Why would the people in positions of power to implement this give it to the masses when they can have it and keep their power forever while the plebs have to continue to age and die?

danShumway 5y ago

> Once you have the effective cure, it will likely be economically a no-brainer to implement, because a whole lot of illness of old age will just go away. It's essentially a self-funding cure that drastically reduce the cost of healthcare. Okay, but don't you see the disconnect here? Because we don't even have good preventative care right now in the US, and that is also economically a no-brainer. Being economically advantageous overall turns out to be not enough of an incentive to introduce political change. So you have this theory that once death is solved, naturally it will be in everyone's best interest to distribute the cure, but that doesn't match up with what we see in the world today. Again, going back to homelessness, if this isn't economically complicated, and we still haven't solved it, that to me suggests that it's not going to be simple in the future to distribute a cure for aging, even if you're right about the incentives. Figuring out how to bridge that gap between economic incentive and political will might be a giant, equally difficult problem to solve. Doesn't it worry you that fixing these kinds of problems today would clearly reduce overall health care costs on the system and yet the problems still exist? How are you so confident that aging will be different?