3 ms·

I 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 highes

I 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 ago
TFA 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