Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bladerunner_35 t1_iuqkw7o wrote

Reply to comment by Responsible-Hat5816 in Want To Live Longer? How Life Extension Industry Will Reboot Health, Wellness and The Economy by Responsible-Hat5816

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