Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bladerunner_35 t1_iumutrb wrote

Imagine Elon or Jeff living 200+ years. You don’t have to imagine. Someone already did and wrote a book called Altered Carbon. It’s a Netflix series too. Bad news for anyone but the ultra rich.

9

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iumwxcs wrote

Imagine using fiction as a predictor of what's to come because it fits your r/collapse agenda.

7

CuckoldMeTimbers t1_iumzu2l wrote

Ah yes, because no fictional work has ever held a deeper meaning, warned of things to come, accurately predicted the future, or been the basis of inventions /s

9

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun2lhc wrote

>Ah yes, because no fictional work has ever held a deeper meaning, warned of things to come, accurately predicted the future, or been the basis of inventions /s

And a lot of fictional work turned out to be utter BS. That doesn't mean anything. Are you going to reject pioneering technology because you coped really well with Altered Carbon? Fiction usually tries to make people feel better about themselves - sour grapes.

Longer life (can't have it) oh it would be boring, the evil rich would only stay young (which doesn't even make sense, since the most profitable solution wouldn't be to offer age reversal to the rich only).

Rich people (can't have it) are the bad guys and the main character will save us.

5

CuckoldMeTimbers t1_iun3toj wrote

I’m responding to your comment and reasoning, nothing more. Of course a lot of fiction doesn’t. But your comment completely disregarded the fact that authors often will attempt to convey their thought of a potential future and are often much closer to the truth than people realize at the time. But while we’re at it, you’re suggesting it would be a better life for big corps to keep people alive so we can… work for hundreds and hundreds of years? Yeah nah I’m good at 65 or so

4

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun4n60 wrote

>Yeah nah I’m good at 65 or so

You don't get to decide how long others are allowed to live. Or that they must age and suffer age related diseases like dementia because "you're good at 65 or so"

It's stupid to think that offering rejuvenation therapies to rich people only will turn out to be more profitable than offering them to the masses.

That doomer movie didn't take that into account, because it's easier to give people cope.

2

CuckoldMeTimbers t1_iun4vgs wrote

I’m not deciding for anyone, they’re free to do whatever they want. That’s my opinion. You’re pretty hostile.

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun5hcw wrote

Then what's the point of replying with I'm good at 65, nah.

No one wants to grow old, get sick and malfunction. And no real argument was made about why the rich will receive this only.

Oh but Altered Carbon!!

2

CuckoldMeTimbers t1_iun90mn wrote

My only point was pointing out how it was wrong to be dismissive like you were about fiction just because it’s fiction, but that (and everything else I said) clearly went sailing over your head, it seems like you still think you’re responding to the original comment. My opinion that I gave was my opinion like I pointed out, which you still seem to be having an issue wrapping your head around

5

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iundhpw wrote

That person above completely dismissed the field of biomedical gerontology, scientists' decades of work because he or she saw a movie ysing the sour grapes tactic. And yet you didn't reply to them

No, medical research won't stop because a gamer from reddit thinks that dementia, cancer and heart disease for everyone should be the norm in the future so that Musk and Bezos age + die as well.

1

CuckoldMeTimbers t1_iuo7js3 wrote

Okay you just wanna argue about that and that wasn’t what I was talking about so have a good one.

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuob9lh wrote

My point is that just because it's fiction doesn't mean you should consider it the future or even likely.

The benefits of life extension outweigh the risks.

1

CuckoldMeTimbers t1_iup4anb wrote

and my point, for the millionth time, is that just because it’s fiction doesn’t mean you should write it off. We’re much closer in ideology than you realize, but you just want to argue with the original commenter and instead found me.

0

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuqgewv wrote

No, as opposed to you, I replied to the original commenter and your comment because I'm not biased.

Just because it's fiction doesn't mean shit. Not a single argument was made worth taking into consideration.

"Muh Altered Carbon!"

2

sertulariae t1_iun62cf wrote

We know what side of the class war you're on. Stop trying to rationalize your way out of it. We see you.

−3

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun6gp7 wrote

What is that doomer comment supposed to mean? Is there a class war? In your head maybe?

4

bladerunner_35 t1_iun3pg8 wrote

Name a beneficial technology that doesn’t benefit the ultra rich exponentially?

I’ve got the polio vaccine and seat belt. Although the ultra rich drives safer cars and have better health care…

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun40fx wrote

What is the point of this comment? Do the math yourself.

Everybody ages and dies. What's more profitable, sell it only to the rich or to the masses?

Simple logic.

5

bladerunner_35 t1_iun4d5u wrote

Wow. I would give a lot to have your optimistic view of the world.

Surely you’ve heard of Aids or Diabetes or Malaria?

−1

AwesomeLowlander t1_iun8bh1 wrote

> optimistic view of the world.

Only necessary if you live in the states

3

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun51vl wrote

Surely you've heard supply and demand. Everybody ages and dies. It'll be impossible to get re-elected if you don't make sure it's affordable or even the society to function.

I don't care about how you cope with aging and death. What you're saying makes no sense.

0

bladerunner_35 t1_iuo9ole wrote

The richest country in the world doesn’t have universal healthcare and the average life expectancy for the US hasn’t recovered from the decline during covid. Every other first world country have both universal healthcare and a (much) higher life expectancy.

US have one of the highest number of billionaires per capita in the world.

The simple facts are against you mate.

0

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuoboc2 wrote

High infectious disease mortality rate is a side effect of immunosenescence, to spell it out to you, aged immune system.

Trillions of dollars are wasted every year to take care of old people.

Logic is against you mate.

1

bladerunner_35 t1_iuoet9s wrote

You are arguing against yourself.

First you say that everyone will benefit from a technology that increases life expectancy.

Now you say that healthcare is wasted on people based on their age.

Checkmate, mate.

Incidentally, how old are you? Just curious, don’t feel like you have to answer. It just seems as something a young person would say.

0

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuqga57 wrote

No, I'm telling you that these therapies will pay for themselves, since we waste trillions of dollars on old people.

Any government with a brain will make sure it'll be for everyone just like the covid vaccine.

You've lost and haven't even realized it.

2

bladerunner_35 t1_iuqkw7o wrote

You still haven’t answered my question why you think this technology will be universally distributed when we there’s still a lot of poor people dying from hunger, lack of clean water and preventable diseases?

Why is it that diabetics, in the US no less, are dying because they cannot pay for insulin?

Surely it pays more to have them pay for insulin over a lifetime rather than price gouging?

The world isn’t rational and you are deluded.

−1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iurazq8 wrote

>we there’s still a lot of poor people dying from hunger, lack of clean water and preventable diseases?

Because it's a different kind of problem. How many tons of food the US throws away again? Do you tell cancer researchers to stop working because there is world hunger first?

1

bladerunner_35 t1_ius1cb2 wrote

That is no the issue we are debating.

This technology will be researched until we have achieved immortality.

1

bladerunner_35 t1_ius22wv wrote

That is no the issue we are debating.

This technology will be researched until we have achieved immortality.

We are debating your silly notion that it will somehow be distributed evenly amongst rich and poor alike.

“The future has already arrived. It's just not evenly distributed yet.”

  • William Gibson

Cancer is a good example. With the right healthcare several cancers can already today be prevented or removed. In many cases the resources aren’t invested to help people.

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_ius9eeb wrote

>Imagine Elon or Jeff living 200+ years. You don’t have to imagine. Someone already did and wrote a book called Altered Carbon. It’s a Netflix series too. Bad news for anyone but the ultra rich.

We're debating your idiotic notion that the ultra rich will be able to get this only because muh altered carbon!

1

bladerunner_35 t1_iutlcjs wrote

Only because you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge my many examples of present day inequalities.

You have yet to produce a single credible argument why a life prolonging technology wouldn’t benefit the ultra rich much greater and to the detriment of everyone else.

We know it is because there are no arguments - I just want to you to continue to imply it by your stumbling sputterings.

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuv8hrd wrote

>You have yet to produce a single credible argument why a life prolonging technology wouldn’t benefit the ultra rich much greater and to the detriment of everyone else.

Because it's more profitable to sell it to everyone than a few select ultra rich.

Plus aging costs us trillions every year. Your non existent argument: "muh I saw a stupid movie!! I coped really well. I like to cope!"

1

bladerunner_35 t1_iuv8krl wrote

Sorry bud, you already said this almost verbatim.

Try again, please.

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuvctix wrote

Βecause I'm responding to the same comments, essentially.

1

bladerunner_35 t1_iuvfe42 wrote

You’re not tho.

I’ve given you several examples of healthcare inequalities if today.

You haven’t given a single example if why this technology would be different beyond that it would be cost-effective.

I’ll ask again. Why would this be universally provided when basic medicine and healthcare isn’t provided today?

Our current economical system isn’t cost-effective beyond the red line of a single corporation. Enormous resources are wasted because of this.

Come on now mate, you’re making us both look bad. You can do better. I am sure there is a point in there somewhere if you can only form it into a coherent thought.

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuvglux wrote

None of these examples explain why only the ultra wealthy would get this.

It makes economic sense to fund and subsidize, just like vaccines.

>We show that a slowdown in aging that increases life expectancy by 1 year is worth US$38 trillion, and by 10 years, US$367 trillion. Ultimately, the more progress that is made in improving how we age, the greater the value of further improvements.
>
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00080-0

1

Gummybearsurgeon t1_iunadkw wrote

I'm reminded of a quote from Charlie Chaplins "the great dictator" speech. "The hate of men will pass, and dictators die. And the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish".

I think of this when the question of extended life comes up. Of course none of us want grandma to pass. But death has always been the great equalizer of mankind. Possibly, even it's salvation.

Edit: wanted to add youtube link for the speech https://youtu.be/J7GY1Xg6X20

2

ElectrikDonuts t1_iup2vix wrote

Our current and past president were born before Bill Clinton, who was also president, but 3 decades ago…. I think Biden first ran in 1988

https://twitter.com/derektmuller/status/1586081695849418753?s=42&t=cYZR5s3pyVdG6gtFh9SMeA

1

bladerunner_35 t1_iuo9ya8 wrote

Great point and well made. At least Putin will eventually die. Imagine the world where he just keeps going.

−1