6 ms·

I would imagine that if humans were immortal, the centralization of wealth and power under a few families would be even more extreme. Which is probably not good

by wubrr 2y ago

I would imagine that if humans were immortal, the centralization of wealth and power under a few families would be even more extreme. Which is probably not good for the vast majority of humans.

olalonde 2y ago
Even if you were right, I'd still chose that society over death. I am not convinced though, wealth seems to dissipate over long periods (e.g. most billionaires today did not inherit their wealth).
- wubrr 2y ago
  I mean, it's pretty hard to predict what such a society would look like, but it's plausible you'd just be a slave from birth until death (because poor slaves don't get the immortality pill). > I am not convinced though, wealth seems to dissipate over long periods (e.g. most billionaires today did not inherit their wealth). The single most reliable predictor of wealth BY FAR is being born into wealth. And arguably, it dissipates because it gets decentralized as it gets split up between heirs as it passed down to future generations which are typically less ambitious and focused on maintaining that power and wealth. Imagine if Ghengis Khan, Stalin, Mao, Rothschild, Rockerfeller, all of the kings/royals/despots/dictators were immortal and still running the world - I don't think most people would want to live in that world.
  - olalonde 2y ago
    > The single most reliable predictor of wealth BY FAR is being born into wealth. I highly doubt that. I would guess that income and age would be much better predictors for example. > I don't think most people would want to live in that world. I would, if the other option was death. Regardless, I doubt any of them would still rule the world had they not died of old age. Regimes survive despite the death of their rulers and fall while their rulers are still alive.
    - wubrr 2y ago
      > I highly doubt that. I would guess that income and age would be much better predictors for example. I'm talking about predictors of wealth for a new person. The age and income are both zero. If you have their income - you probably have their wealth already as well - nothing to predict. And for the record, coming from wealth is the strongest predictor of future wealth. [0][1] > I would, if the other option was death. But you have no choice/option in my hypothetical scenario - you're born a slave and you die... > Regardless, I doubt any of them would still rule the world had they not died of old age. Really.... ? Why? All of the people I mentioned, maintained and grew their wealth/power their entire life up until their death. Having power/wealth is just a huge advantage if you're trying to gain/maintain power/wealth. [0] https://www.ctpublic.org/education/2019-05-15/georgetown-study-wealth-not-ability-the-biggest-predictor-of-future-success https://www.ctpublic.org/education/2019-05-15/georgetown-stu... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/study-to-succeed-in-america-its-better-to-be-born-rich-than-smart.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/study-to-succeed-in-america-...
      - olalonde 2y ago
        > I'm talking about predictors of wealth for a new person. That's almost a tautology then. If you only know one thing about someone, that's also necessarily the best predictor for anything about them. However, it doesn't tell us much about whether wealth does concentrate over time. > Really.... ? Why? Because regimes change all the time despite rulers being alive. The death of a ruler by old age rarely triggers regime change, they just get succeeded by someone else. It's usually another event that triggers regime change (peaceful and violent revolutions, war, etc.). Immortal rulers wouldn't be immune to those events.
        superturkey650 2y ago
        The biggest cause of regime change seems to be the succession of power and the fears around change occurring during succession of power. A ruler dying through old age is a common source of regime change in history as people with varying interests start vying for that position and ensuring the new ruler holds their same interests.
- smegger001 2y ago
  Largely because it gets split amongst inheritors and they often are less able to manage wealth than the original accumulator of the wealth. Immortalis would not need to split their estate up every so often as death causes to happen now instead they would continue to accumulate more.
  - widowlark 2y ago
    banks would not offer such lucrative interest rates if immortality was a publicly known trait
lawlessone 2y ago
We'd certainly need to change our social system lot.
netcraft 2y ago
altered carbon is a great show that deals with this
hagbard_c 2y ago
If they were immortal they'd soon find a way to move beyond this planet, then beyond this solar system. Once that is accomplished there is a whole universe to colonise so I assume that is what would happen. It would be the only way really since the planet would otherwise quickly fill up and 'immortality' would end up a pipe dream due to endless conflict over land and sustenance.
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  Ah yes, the "vampire spaceship" season of humanity.
- AlchemistCamp 2y ago
  That's far from guaranteed. With an average fertility rate of 1, which is higher than that of many countries including where I live, even complete immortality would lead to an asymptotic population. Since some people will still inevitably die in accidents even if aging is solved, a fertility rate of 1 would be a declining population even with unlimited lifespans.
- wubrr 2y ago
  You're assuming everyone gets the immortality and is de facto benevolent. If you actually look at how the super rich and powerful have acted historically - its much more likely that the few richest/most powerful people would just take control of the earth, reserve immortality for themselves, and keep everyone else as a mortal slave.
indoordin0saur 2y ago
I'd rather have the healthy and energy of a 25 year old and live in a world where there are people far richer than me than be a frail 80 year old where at least I know there aren't any trillionaires. Another thought I had was that revolutions over inequality almost always happen when there's a large youthful population. The old just don't have the energy or the future-focused outlook for big change. Inequality might be less stable if all adults had the health of their youth.
- wubrr 2y ago
  > I'd rather have the healthy and energy of a 25 year old and live in a world where there are people far richer than me than be a frail 80 year old where at least I know there aren't any trillionaires. That's a very specific scenario, where everything happens to be going great for you. Do you honestly believe wealth inequality has no negative consequences for those at the bottom?
  - indoordin0saur 2y ago
    No, I agree that extreme wealth inequality is not desirable. But the question I'm trying to get at is if we can have medicine that will make people live dramatically healthier lives isn't it worth it even if some billionaires get to hold onto their wealth a little longer? "But if we cure aging won't that mean that the ultra-rich will never go away??" That's what these conversations always seem to devolve into and it seems to miss the bigger picture.
    - wubrr 2y ago
      I think it will be worth it, but we can't just assume that such a medicine will be available for everyone, or ignore the effects it will have on society. Many medicines and treatments we have today are already basically available only to the wealthy. Many prominent billionaires are on record spreading overpopulation FUD and anti-natalism, while having multiple children themselves. In theory - I agree that having some kind of anti-aging treatment that is available for everyone would be awesome, but in practice it could end up as immortality for the very few, while making the vast majority worse off.
michaelteter 2y ago
How long does it take for evolution to resolve that presumably long-term unintentional negative outcome?

by wubrr 2y ago

I would imagine that if humans were immortal, the centralization of wealth and power under a few families would be even more extreme. Which is probably not good for the vast majority of humans.

olalonde 2y ago

Even if you were right, I'd still chose that society over death. I am not convinced though, wealth seems to dissipate over long periods (e.g. most billionaires today did not inherit their wealth).

wubrr 2y ago
I mean, it's pretty hard to predict what such a society would look like, but it's plausible you'd just be a slave from birth until death (because poor slaves don't get the immortality pill). > I am not convinced though, wealth seems to dissipate over long periods (e.g. most billionaires today did not inherit their wealth). The single most reliable predictor of wealth BY FAR is being born into wealth. And arguably, it dissipates because it gets decentralized as it gets split up between heirs as it passed down to future generations which are typically less ambitious and focused on maintaining that power and wealth. Imagine if Ghengis Khan, Stalin, Mao, Rothschild, Rockerfeller, all of the kings/royals/despots/dictators were immortal and still running the world - I don't think most people would want to live in that world.
- olalonde 2y ago
  > The single most reliable predictor of wealth BY FAR is being born into wealth. I highly doubt that. I would guess that income and age would be much better predictors for example. > I don't think most people would want to live in that world. I would, if the other option was death. Regardless, I doubt any of them would still rule the world had they not died of old age. Regimes survive despite the death of their rulers and fall while their rulers are still alive.
  - wubrr 2y ago
    > I highly doubt that. I would guess that income and age would be much better predictors for example. I'm talking about predictors of wealth for a new person. The age and income are both zero. If you have their income - you probably have their wealth already as well - nothing to predict. And for the record, coming from wealth is the strongest predictor of future wealth. [0][1] > I would, if the other option was death. But you have no choice/option in my hypothetical scenario - you're born a slave and you die... > Regardless, I doubt any of them would still rule the world had they not died of old age. Really.... ? Why? All of the people I mentioned, maintained and grew their wealth/power their entire life up until their death. Having power/wealth is just a huge advantage if you're trying to gain/maintain power/wealth. [0] https://www.ctpublic.org/education/2019-05-15/georgetown-study-wealth-not-ability-the-biggest-predictor-of-future-success https://www.ctpublic.org/education/2019-05-15/georgetown-stu... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/study-to-succeed-in-america-its-better-to-be-born-rich-than-smart.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/study-to-succeed-in-america-...
    - olalonde 2y ago
      > I'm talking about predictors of wealth for a new person. That's almost a tautology then. If you only know one thing about someone, that's also necessarily the best predictor for anything about them. However, it doesn't tell us much about whether wealth does concentrate over time. > Really.... ? Why? Because regimes change all the time despite rulers being alive. The death of a ruler by old age rarely triggers regime change, they just get succeeded by someone else. It's usually another event that triggers regime change (peaceful and violent revolutions, war, etc.). Immortal rulers wouldn't be immune to those events.
      - superturkey650 2y ago
        The biggest cause of regime change seems to be the succession of power and the fears around change occurring during succession of power. A ruler dying through old age is a common source of regime change in history as people with varying interests start vying for that position and ensuring the new ruler holds their same interests.
smegger001 2y ago
Largely because it gets split amongst inheritors and they often are less able to manage wealth than the original accumulator of the wealth. Immortalis would not need to split their estate up every so often as death causes to happen now instead they would continue to accumulate more.
- widowlark 2y ago
  banks would not offer such lucrative interest rates if immortality was a publicly known trait

lawlessone 2y ago

We'd certainly need to change our social system lot.

netcraft 2y ago

altered carbon is a great show that deals with this

hagbard_c 2y ago

If they were immortal they'd soon find a way to move beyond this planet, then beyond this solar system. Once that is accomplished there is a whole universe to colonise so I assume that is what would happen. It would be the only way really since the planet would otherwise quickly fill up and 'immortality' would end up a pipe dream due to endless conflict over land and sustenance.

jvanderbot 2y ago
Ah yes, the "vampire spaceship" season of humanity.
AlchemistCamp 2y ago
That's far from guaranteed. With an average fertility rate of 1, which is higher than that of many countries including where I live, even complete immortality would lead to an asymptotic population. Since some people will still inevitably die in accidents even if aging is solved, a fertility rate of 1 would be a declining population even with unlimited lifespans.
wubrr 2y ago
You're assuming everyone gets the immortality and is de facto benevolent. If you actually look at how the super rich and powerful have acted historically - its much more likely that the few richest/most powerful people would just take control of the earth, reserve immortality for themselves, and keep everyone else as a mortal slave.

indoordin0saur 2y ago

I'd rather have the healthy and energy of a 25 year old and live in a world where there are people far richer than me than be a frail 80 year old where at least I know there aren't any trillionaires. Another thought I had was that revolutions over inequality almost always happen when there's a large youthful population. The old just don't have the energy or the future-focused outlook for big change. Inequality might be less stable if all adults had the health of their youth.

wubrr 2y ago
> I'd rather have the healthy and energy of a 25 year old and live in a world where there are people far richer than me than be a frail 80 year old where at least I know there aren't any trillionaires. That's a very specific scenario, where everything happens to be going great for you. Do you honestly believe wealth inequality has no negative consequences for those at the bottom?
- indoordin0saur 2y ago
  No, I agree that extreme wealth inequality is not desirable. But the question I'm trying to get at is if we can have medicine that will make people live dramatically healthier lives isn't it worth it even if some billionaires get to hold onto their wealth a little longer? "But if we cure aging won't that mean that the ultra-rich will never go away??" That's what these conversations always seem to devolve into and it seems to miss the bigger picture.
  - wubrr 2y ago
    I think it will be worth it, but we can't just assume that such a medicine will be available for everyone, or ignore the effects it will have on society. Many medicines and treatments we have today are already basically available only to the wealthy. Many prominent billionaires are on record spreading overpopulation FUD and anti-natalism, while having multiple children themselves. In theory - I agree that having some kind of anti-aging treatment that is available for everyone would be awesome, but in practice it could end up as immortality for the very few, while making the vast majority worse off.

michaelteter 2y ago

How long does it take for evolution to resolve that presumably long-term unintentional negative outcome?