4 ms·

I agree, but existence is so much more important than availability at this point in history. Accelerate existence by whatever means necessary; availability wil

• eropple 13y ago
  > I agree, but existence is so much more important than availability at this point in history. You assume that those in power will want to make more like them and I think that is mostly unlikely. Nothing attracts the powerful like an insurmountable advantage. Being able to outwait your potential competition at that scale is powerful and I have a hard time seeing powerful people wanting to make their potential competitors as powerful.
  • vectorjohn 13y ago
    These arguments make no sense. Poor / lower class people become wealthy all the time, disruption happens. The wealthy / immortal class will grow, maybe slowly maybe quickly. But it will grow. That means the poor / short lived class will shrink by necessity (or the red herring overpopulation argument). Over time, more and more of the population will become well off and/or immortal, and the great thing is they won't die. If you think we'll get to a point where nobody can disrupt the anti-aging industry ever, and nobody will be able to make it cheaper, well, you're pretty pessimistic. Because the one constant we seem to see is (immortal) corporations being disrupted by little startups. Corporations right now live forever and yet they don't stay in power forever. The same will go with this.
    • eropple 13y ago
      > Poor / lower class people become wealthy all the time, disruption happens. I don't see why you'd say this. Economic mobility in the developed world is steadily shrinking. I don't see that shrink getting better if the rich can play on the time scale of centuries. Or if the corporations they own can do so. As has been noted numerous times, poverty means you have to think "tomorrow" rather than "a month from now" or "a year from now". When you can think "eight decades from now" or even "two centuries from now", you are in an incredibly powerful position and I am extremely skeptical that people with that advantage will give it up for the rest of us.
  • lukev 13y ago
    A world in which anti-aging technology exists is strictly superior to a world in which anti-aging technology does not exist, regardless of who has access to it. Of course, universal access is far better, and we should keep that in mind, but if it takes profit-motivated corporations to bring the technology into existence in the first place, then so be it.
    • eropple 13y ago
      Serious question: what makes such a world inherently better if that's limited only to people in the position to exploit others? Because I personally think that's the likely scenario. Giving the rich the tools to exploit the rest of us even further seems pretty foolish. Likely, even inevitable--but no less foolish.
      • lukev 13y ago
        Inventing effective anti-aging is much, much harder than subverting a power structure (either by pirating the drug formula or by revolution.) Therefore, if you stipulated that such an invention could only happen if it started off in the hands of the powerful, I would still take that bargain.
• king_jester 13y ago
  > Accelerate existence by whatever means necessary; availability will follow. This is not demonstrated at all. Increasing existence and production of food hasn't tackled food insecurity and hunger, for example. That something exists, even if cheaply, does not mean it will become accessible.
  • henryaj 13y ago
    > Increasing existence and production of food hasn't tackled food insecurity and hunger, for example. Um... what about the millions of lives saved by the green revolution and agricultural advances? Hunger hasn't been eliminated, but technology has increased the carrying capacity of the earth by a few billion. Re. technological availability: see the falling price of mobile phones, personal computers, Internet connections.