5 ms·

So this is a common argument against longevity -- that dictators would remain in power for even longer. A simple counterpoint: imagine a world were we all did

So this is a common argument against longevity -- that dictators would remain in power for even longer. A simple counterpoint: imagine a world were we all did live until 500 years old. And there were some bad dictators in that world. If you lived in that world, would you suggest cutting everyone's lifespan to 80 years old to diminish the power of those dictators?

jrockway 3y ago
My take is that if the cancer doesn't get you, the angry subjects will. Right now, medical science is what imposes term limits on dictators. But it's likely that humanity will impose their own, like they have in less dictatorial regimes. (Everyone's worried about dictators, but I'm just sitting here thinking about the Supreme Court.)
LeifCarrotson 3y ago
Or pretend you lived in a world where dictators often live to 80 years of age or more (easy to do, because that is the world you live in). Would you support cutting everyone's lifespan to 20 to diminish the power of those dictators?
- aredox 3y ago
  Would you support paying the cost of providing everyone with your life-expanding drug? Because that's never discussed
  - jjk166 3y ago
    Do you support paying the cost of providing healthcare for age-related conditions to everyone who does not get the life-expanding drug? People living healthier and longer is extremely economically beneficial for all.
aredox 3y ago
"Everyone's" lifespan? Is your longevity drug going to be offered for free? Are you going to use taxes to pay for everyone's right to live? Your scenario is a pure strawman - we all know that in the current social and economic system, anti-aging drugs are just going to worsen inequality...
- orangecat 3y ago
  Is your longevity drug going to be offered for free? They'll almost certainly be cheaper than the costs of treating the effects of aging. Are you going to use taxes to pay for everyone's right to live? We do this already. we all know that in the current social and economic system, anti-aging drugs are just going to worsen inequality This is extreme zero-sum thinking. Has chemotherapy worsened inequality?
  - macintux 3y ago
    > They'll almost certainly be cheaper than the costs of treating the effects of aging. Will they really reduce the medical costs of aging when you take into account the longer lifespan? To borrow an argument from a different branch of the thread: if everyone lived to be only 20, would you expect that medical expenses would be more than they are today, or less?
- Teever 3y ago
  Anybody who withholds large scale distribution of these drugs while taking the drugs themselves is just painting a huge target on their back. No rational person is going to respect intellectual property rights for these sorts of substances and if they're relatively easy to produce then people will make them themselves. Anyone who tries to stop the production and distribution of them will basically be killing people with more steps and people don't take too kindly to that. These people may be living twice as long with these drugs while others die, but that doesn't make them immortal.
paxys 3y ago
I can't imagine a world where everyone will live for 500 years because there is zero chance that's how such a magic drug will be distributed. Life is the most valuable commodity we have, and it will absolutely be hoarded by the top 1%.
- jjk166 3y ago
  By that logic things critical to life like water and food would be extremely expensive while useless things like diamonds or gold bars would be cheap. What benefit would the rich derive by hoarding life extension drugs? Other people taking the same drug as you doesn't make your dose any less effective, nor vice versa.
  - paxys 3y ago
    You don't need to do some crazy speculation to reach this conclusion. People in the richest countries in the world are dying because they can't afford a shot of insulin or an ambulance or the most basic preventative care. Why will life extending drugs be any different? The only concern will be to maximize profit and not much else.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - nmca 3y ago
      https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy
    - jjk166 3y ago
      The rich aren't hoarding insulin, pharma companies are exploiting a specific US patent law loophole to make everyone overpay. Outside of the US, insulin is cheap.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    Even if they could profit by hoarding such drugs, what's going to prevent people from manufacturing the same thing elsewhere? It's just like software "piracy": once the information gets out, there's no way to stop it. Drugs aren't that difficult to manufacture, which is why lots of pharmaceuticals are manufactured, ignoring patent protections, in places like India.
dullcrisp 3y ago
I guess the fear is that only dictators would live for 500 years. But that’s still an argument for longevity research I think. If living to 500 years is a war crime, only war criminals will live to 500 years, and all that.
polishdude20 3y ago
I think the issue is as you get older, you amass more wealth and power but you amass less open mindedness. You become more conservative, set in your ways.this would permeate every process and institution in our lives.
shiroiuma 3y ago
I see nothing wrong with letting dictators live forever, and stay in power forever, if that's what their people want. If the people don't like the dictator, it's entirely in their power to remove the dictator. How exactly can one person stay in power over an entire nation of millions? It's only because the people there tolerate it. If the society needs a lifespan limit to limit the damage dictators can do, the problem isn't the lifespan.
- bezier-curve 3y ago
  > It's only because the people there tolerate it. Or they're too poor to leave for greener pastures. Dictators are in power not because their people tolerate them, but because they don't have a choice in many cases. There's exceptions, but generally the stigmatized term "banana republic" aptly describes many of these places dictators control for a reason.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    >Dictators are in power not because their people tolerate them, but because they don't have a choice in many cases. They absolutely do: they can rise up and revolt. How is a dictator going to stop them? He's one person. How exactly does one person stay in power over millions? No dictator in history has ever been a Marvel-comics-style supervillain with fantastical powers. Dictators stay in power because their people tolerate them.

jrockway 3y ago

My take is that if the cancer doesn't get you, the angry subjects will. Right now, medical science is what imposes term limits on dictators. But it's likely that humanity will impose their own, like they have in less dictatorial regimes. (Everyone's worried about dictators, but I'm just sitting here thinking about the Supreme Court.)

LeifCarrotson 3y ago

Or pretend you lived in a world where dictators often live to 80 years of age or more (easy to do, because that is the world you live in). Would you support cutting everyone's lifespan to 20 to diminish the power of those dictators?

aredox 3y ago
Would you support paying the cost of providing everyone with your life-expanding drug? Because that's never discussed
- jjk166 3y ago
  Do you support paying the cost of providing healthcare for age-related conditions to everyone who does not get the life-expanding drug? People living healthier and longer is extremely economically beneficial for all.

aredox 3y ago

"Everyone's" lifespan? Is your longevity drug going to be offered for free? Are you going to use taxes to pay for everyone's right to live? Your scenario is a pure strawman - we all know that in the current social and economic system, anti-aging drugs are just going to worsen inequality...

orangecat 3y ago
Is your longevity drug going to be offered for free? They'll almost certainly be cheaper than the costs of treating the effects of aging. Are you going to use taxes to pay for everyone's right to live? We do this already. we all know that in the current social and economic system, anti-aging drugs are just going to worsen inequality This is extreme zero-sum thinking. Has chemotherapy worsened inequality?
- macintux 3y ago
  > They'll almost certainly be cheaper than the costs of treating the effects of aging. Will they really reduce the medical costs of aging when you take into account the longer lifespan? To borrow an argument from a different branch of the thread: if everyone lived to be only 20, would you expect that medical expenses would be more than they are today, or less?
Teever 3y ago
Anybody who withholds large scale distribution of these drugs while taking the drugs themselves is just painting a huge target on their back. No rational person is going to respect intellectual property rights for these sorts of substances and if they're relatively easy to produce then people will make them themselves. Anyone who tries to stop the production and distribution of them will basically be killing people with more steps and people don't take too kindly to that. These people may be living twice as long with these drugs while others die, but that doesn't make them immortal.

paxys 3y ago

I can't imagine a world where everyone will live for 500 years because there is zero chance that's how such a magic drug will be distributed. Life is the most valuable commodity we have, and it will absolutely be hoarded by the top 1%.

jjk166 3y ago
By that logic things critical to life like water and food would be extremely expensive while useless things like diamonds or gold bars would be cheap. What benefit would the rich derive by hoarding life extension drugs? Other people taking the same drug as you doesn't make your dose any less effective, nor vice versa.
- paxys 3y ago
  You don't need to do some crazy speculation to reach this conclusion. People in the richest countries in the world are dying because they can't afford a shot of insulin or an ambulance or the most basic preventative care. Why will life extending drugs be any different? The only concern will be to maximize profit and not much else.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nmca 3y ago
    https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy
  - jjk166 3y ago
    The rich aren't hoarding insulin, pharma companies are exploiting a specific US patent law loophole to make everyone overpay. Outside of the US, insulin is cheap.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  Even if they could profit by hoarding such drugs, what's going to prevent people from manufacturing the same thing elsewhere? It's just like software "piracy": once the information gets out, there's no way to stop it. Drugs aren't that difficult to manufacture, which is why lots of pharmaceuticals are manufactured, ignoring patent protections, in places like India.

dullcrisp 3y ago

I guess the fear is that only dictators would live for 500 years. But that’s still an argument for longevity research I think. If living to 500 years is a war crime, only war criminals will live to 500 years, and all that.

polishdude20 3y ago

I think the issue is as you get older, you amass more wealth and power but you amass less open mindedness. You become more conservative, set in your ways.this would permeate every process and institution in our lives.

shiroiuma 3y ago

I see nothing wrong with letting dictators live forever, and stay in power forever, if that's what their people want. If the people don't like the dictator, it's entirely in their power to remove the dictator. How exactly can one person stay in power over an entire nation of millions? It's only because the people there tolerate it. If the society needs a lifespan limit to limit the damage dictators can do, the problem isn't the lifespan.

bezier-curve 3y ago
> It's only because the people there tolerate it. Or they're too poor to leave for greener pastures. Dictators are in power not because their people tolerate them, but because they don't have a choice in many cases. There's exceptions, but generally the stigmatized term "banana republic" aptly describes many of these places dictators control for a reason.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  >Dictators are in power not because their people tolerate them, but because they don't have a choice in many cases. They absolutely do: they can rise up and revolt. How is a dictator going to stop them? He's one person. How exactly does one person stay in power over millions? No dictator in history has ever been a Marvel-comics-style supervillain with fantastical powers. Dictators stay in power because their people tolerate them.