4 ms·

In his example, he did not suggest that there were any downsides to voting yes. What was your basis for voting no?

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Simple: indefinite lifespan for the members of tiny minority Group A will turn them into a ruling elite even if they're not one already. You can't separate the issue of lifespan from social hierarchy.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  Okay, let's attach numbers to the scenario. Assume there are 1 million people in Group A and 990 million people in Group B. By voting no, you just condemned 900,000 people in Group A to eventually die, simply because you wanted to prevent them from becoming the ruling elite. Stated differently, you had the power to prevent 900,000 deaths (and in fact many more than that, moving forward), and you chose not to because of ideology. Surely it is better for people to not die - to not cease to exist - even if that means they rise to the top of the social hierarchy?
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    Surely it is better for people to not die - to not cease to exist - even if that means they rise to the top of the social hierarchy? Not unless they're going to be benevolent rulers, no. I will not grant people immortal life so that they can make everyone else's lives into a living hell.
    - henryaj 13y ago
      By that logic, we should never have eradicated smallpox. Medicine extends lifespan - and a rising tide lifts all boats.
      - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        By that logic, we should never have eradicated smallpox. We eradicated smallpox for everyone, without distinction between rulers and ruled. That's the difference! a rising tide lifts all boats. "A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire
        enraged_camel 13y ago
        >>We eradicated smallpox for everyone, without distinction between rulers and ruled. That's the difference! You may want to familiarize yourself with the history of smallpox eradication before continuing this debate. The vaccination was available mostly in wealthy countries first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication "...coordinated efforts against smallpox went on, and the disease continued to diminish in the wealthy countries. By 1897, smallpox had largely been eliminated from the United States.[66] In Northern Europe a number of countries had eliminated smallpox by 1900, and by 1914, the incidence in most industrialized countries had decreased to comparatively low levels..."
        henryaj 13y ago
        >We eradicated smallpox for everyone, without distinction between rulers and ruled. Notwithstanding the daughter comment that disproves this, try substituting 'smallpox' for 'cancer'. Cancer treatment is by no means available to everyone, or even the majority, yet it extends lifespans (of good people and dictators alike). Should we not have developed treatments for cancer?
  - arg01 13y ago
    There have been several times in human history where the majority have decided it would be best if the 'elite' should have their lifespans shortened. Arguably with positive results.
    - waqf 13y ago
      I can't think of any times when people have had their lifespans shortened for fear they would become the elite, and the shorteners were on the right side of history. That sounds more like The Crucible.
      - arg01 13y ago
        The point is they are not potential elite, they are already elite. The fact that they can get hold of the treatment when the majority can not shows they're already placed at the top of society. Personally I agree with the logic that if we have the choice between 0 and 100,000 people living for ever we pick 100,000 (Even if that 100,000 include such greats as Un and Assad). Having said that If I had the choice between 100,000 living forever and 3 billion people living forever with less private jets in the world I'd pick the later. Perhaps I'm cynical but if we do indeed get this tech I'm a lot less confident about my values being satisfied in the second instance than the first.
    - oblio 13y ago
      French Revolution versus Red October, Mao's Cultural Revolution, gulags and concentration camps for every communist country. In 90% of these "elite trimmings" society is pushed back decades at least. Unruly mobs do not move the world forward.
      - arg01 13y ago
        They may not move their country forward, that doesn't mean they don't move the world forward. Say what you will about the French revolution's effect on France but it greatly influenced the spread of democracies and republics world wise. Similarly the presence of socialism(in the production owned by the people sense) hugely encouraged improvements in working conditions in countries that feared similar upheaval and loss of property. But I wouldn't argue with you that the majority of these 'elite trimmings' set the society back. The question is after the set back does it move forward faster than it was or in a better direction (Often the answer to this would be hugely reliant on your personal values).
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Simple: indefinite lifespan for the members of tiny minority Group A will turn them into a ruling elite even if they're not one already. Evidence or rationale supporting this conclusion?
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    Two words: compound interest.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Two words: compound interest. Compound interest works intergenerationally as well as within a lifetime, so that doesn't seem to be much of an argument.
      - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        And lo and behold! When we fail to implement estate taxes, compounding investments ensure that the bloodlines of the well-off and long-lived become the rich elite! Remember, this is a scenario where we're talking about 1% of the population getting life-extension while everyone else remains stuck with 80-120 years of maximum lifespan. Those indefinite folks are going to get very wealthy very quickly (as in, within one century), because they can afford to wait for long-term investments to pay off in a way nobody else can.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > When we fail to implement estate taxes, compounding investments ensure that the bloodlines of the well-off and long-lived become the rich elite! Right, so compound interest isn't magic as long as you have taxes (and, actually, compound interest per se is rarely a problem when you have taxable interest, appreciation of capital assets that works like interest but isn't is the problem -- and it comes about specifically because of the choice to give tax-favored status to long-term capital gains.) Estate taxes are a mechanism that works to mitigate the problems caused by favoring capital income when death is a reliable periodic effect, but you could acheive much the same effect in a progressive income tax system, without sensitivity the frequency of death, by simply not giving long-term capital gains a tax-favored status, and treating income as income, especially if you add more upper-range marginal tax brackets for super-high-end incomes.

Simple: indefinite lifespan for the members of tiny minority Group A will turn them into a ruling elite even if they're not one already. You can't separate the issue of lifespan from social hierarchy.

enraged_camel 13y ago
Okay, let's attach numbers to the scenario. Assume there are 1 million people in Group A and 990 million people in Group B. By voting no, you just condemned 900,000 people in Group A to eventually die, simply because you wanted to prevent them from becoming the ruling elite. Stated differently, you had the power to prevent 900,000 deaths (and in fact many more than that, moving forward), and you chose not to because of ideology. Surely it is better for people to not die - to not cease to exist - even if that means they rise to the top of the social hierarchy?
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Surely it is better for people to not die - to not cease to exist - even if that means they rise to the top of the social hierarchy? Not unless they're going to be benevolent rulers, no. I will not grant people immortal life so that they can make everyone else's lives into a living hell.
  - henryaj 13y ago
    By that logic, we should never have eradicated smallpox. Medicine extends lifespan - and a rising tide lifts all boats.
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      By that logic, we should never have eradicated smallpox. We eradicated smallpox for everyone, without distinction between rulers and ruled. That's the difference! a rising tide lifts all boats. "A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire
      - enraged_camel 13y ago
        >>We eradicated smallpox for everyone, without distinction between rulers and ruled. That's the difference! You may want to familiarize yourself with the history of smallpox eradication before continuing this debate. The vaccination was available mostly in wealthy countries first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication "...coordinated efforts against smallpox went on, and the disease continued to diminish in the wealthy countries. By 1897, smallpox had largely been eliminated from the United States.[66] In Northern Europe a number of countries had eliminated smallpox by 1900, and by 1914, the incidence in most industrialized countries had decreased to comparatively low levels..."
      - henryaj 13y ago
        >We eradicated smallpox for everyone, without distinction between rulers and ruled. Notwithstanding the daughter comment that disproves this, try substituting 'smallpox' for 'cancer'. Cancer treatment is by no means available to everyone, or even the majority, yet it extends lifespans (of good people and dictators alike). Should we not have developed treatments for cancer?
- arg01 13y ago
  There have been several times in human history where the majority have decided it would be best if the 'elite' should have their lifespans shortened. Arguably with positive results.
  - waqf 13y ago
    I can't think of any times when people have had their lifespans shortened for fear they would become the elite, and the shorteners were on the right side of history. That sounds more like The Crucible.
    - arg01 13y ago
      The point is they are not potential elite, they are already elite. The fact that they can get hold of the treatment when the majority can not shows they're already placed at the top of society. Personally I agree with the logic that if we have the choice between 0 and 100,000 people living for ever we pick 100,000 (Even if that 100,000 include such greats as Un and Assad). Having said that If I had the choice between 100,000 living forever and 3 billion people living forever with less private jets in the world I'd pick the later. Perhaps I'm cynical but if we do indeed get this tech I'm a lot less confident about my values being satisfied in the second instance than the first.
  - oblio 13y ago
    French Revolution versus Red October, Mao's Cultural Revolution, gulags and concentration camps for every communist country. In 90% of these "elite trimmings" society is pushed back decades at least. Unruly mobs do not move the world forward.
    - arg01 13y ago
      They may not move their country forward, that doesn't mean they don't move the world forward. Say what you will about the French revolution's effect on France but it greatly influenced the spread of democracies and republics world wise. Similarly the presence of socialism(in the production owned by the people sense) hugely encouraged improvements in working conditions in countries that feared similar upheaval and loss of property. But I wouldn't argue with you that the majority of these 'elite trimmings' set the society back. The question is after the set back does it move forward faster than it was or in a better direction (Often the answer to this would be hugely reliant on your personal values).
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Simple: indefinite lifespan for the members of tiny minority Group A will turn them into a ruling elite even if they're not one already. Evidence or rationale supporting this conclusion?
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Two words: compound interest.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Two words: compound interest. Compound interest works intergenerationally as well as within a lifetime, so that doesn't seem to be much of an argument.
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      And lo and behold! When we fail to implement estate taxes, compounding investments ensure that the bloodlines of the well-off and long-lived become the rich elite! Remember, this is a scenario where we're talking about 1% of the population getting life-extension while everyone else remains stuck with 80-120 years of maximum lifespan. Those indefinite folks are going to get very wealthy very quickly (as in, within one century), because they can afford to wait for long-term investments to pay off in a way nobody else can.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > When we fail to implement estate taxes, compounding investments ensure that the bloodlines of the well-off and long-lived become the rich elite! Right, so compound interest isn't magic as long as you have taxes (and, actually, compound interest per se is rarely a problem when you have taxable interest, appreciation of capital assets that works like interest but isn't is the problem -- and it comes about specifically because of the choice to give tax-favored status to long-term capital gains.) Estate taxes are a mechanism that works to mitigate the problems caused by favoring capital income when death is a reliable periodic effect, but you could acheive much the same effect in a progressive income tax system, without sensitivity the frequency of death, by simply not giving long-term capital gains a tax-favored status, and treating income as income, especially if you add more upper-range marginal tax brackets for super-high-end incomes.