| I kind of like somthing along the same lines as the idea intended in Altered Carbon - everyone gets 100 years of generally healthy life, but then everyone dies at 100. Not realistic at all, but seems highly equitable. OK. Do you want to die? I don't want to die. Life is already inequitable as it is. The rich live a little bit longer. The pleb dies short and miserable life. At the very least, everyone should be able to live as long as they like. Any artificial constraints will be evaded or manipulated at some point, even in the name of what's best for humanity (ie what if Davinci or Einstien were still alive; eventually the people in power would say I'm president, so presidents should live forever too, etc). There's also no absolute law of politics that dictators rule forever or indefinitely if they also happen to be immortal. Regardless, the bigger issue would be overpopulation. No, the problem is ecological disaster. There's so much energy coming from the sun that humanity can't even begin to harvest a fraction of it, but we cannot scale to the sun because doing so will poison the Earth. |
Someday, yes.
"Life is already inequitable as it is."
Which is why my statement was commenting on the equitable nature of lifespan in the fictional system.
"At the very least, everyone should be able to live as long as they like."
How do you propose to achieve this? Specifically, how would resource availability/consumption and indignant support systems be able to support it?
"There's also no absolute law of politics that dictators rule forever or indefinitely if they also happen to be immortal."
Nobody suggested what you are saying.
"No, the problem is ecological disaster."
For which increasing population would greatly contribute. Population is a major driver of consumption and there's no evidence that we can even support our current population sustainably. Your comment about scaling seems to be implicity acknowledge this.