3 ms·
Yes. No question. "Blah blah eternal life oligarchs or whatever" - who cares it's not like we don't have that problem now. Those people are powerful because we
by XorNot 4y ago
Yes. No question.
"Blah blah eternal life oligarchs or whatever" - who cares it's not like we don't have that problem now. Those people are powerful because we let them be, it's not innate. Maybe we might do something about the problem when there's a risk it'll last forever rather then pretending it's not a systemic failure.
If it's possible to do, it's going to be done: the question is actually "should we let poor people (non-billionaires) have it?".
- h0l0cube 4y agoAre you advocating accelerationism for The Purge?
- XorNot 4y agoI'm saying that if clinical immortality is possible and you're asking "ethical questions" about doing it, what you're actually providing cover for is "we shouldn't give it to the poor" - which is as morally bankrupt a position as it ever was.
- h0l0cube 4y agoI was maybe being a little facetious. The moral question isn't important as much as how it will play out in practice. i.e., it will be available to the highest bidders, at first, and from then on, the best life extension will be available to those with the most money. It's only a matter of time before that sways the majority against the wealthy minority, and then pragmatism may dictate some concession to not as wealthy people, lest heads roll. The option B is governance at a global level that mandates equal access, which is hardly realistic in today's political climate.
- jessaustin 4y agoTFA notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be any reason to suspect we'll get a magical immortality switch that can just be turned on. More likely, various treatments will incrementally delay death for more and more elderly rich people. In less civilized nations, this process has already been underway for decades. [0] "Governance at a global level" would put IP owners in charge of health care everywhere, which seems unlikely to increase egalitarianism in life expectancy. [0] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/life-s22.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/life-s22.html
- kajaktum 4y agoYou do realize it's only going to be available for very rich people right? Assuming that the technology is not trivial, only the rich will ever get it. Same thing with genetically modified kids. Even if it is trivial, corporations will just hike up the price because clearly everyone wants it.
- BurningFrog 4y agoThe history of pretty much all inventions is that only the rich get it at first. After a while the slightly less rich get it, and after a few decades, it's everyone's absolute birthright.
- chaorace 4y agoI wonder if FDR would still be in office if he were still alive? It's an interesting thought experiment to consider how long he'd have lasted given his prior record.
- jessaustin 4y agoIf he hadn't died they would have had to kill him. He and Stalin trusted each other enough to make a lasting, nuclear-free peace. The wheels were already in motion when they replaced Wallace with the haberdasher.
- roca 4y agoIn the USA, the baby boomer gerontocracy has amassed dominating wealth and power to the detriment of all. It's daunting to imagine a world where they never die. "Do something about it" is much easier said than done. Another angle: what's science going to be like when no-one ever retires from faculty positions?
- rowanG077 4y agoI personally believe a few violent wars is much less inhumane then aging.