[nosianu]

Not dying would probably mean even more concentration of wealth and power. I agree with the OP. If we had some idyllic society I might be more tempted to disagree, but as it is, those with power are most likely to be able to afford the necessary treatments and I don't think they are doing a good "leader" job in this world. It would not be the humble people living ordinary lives who will profit the most from longevity treatments.

In the interest of the future of humanity, I hope we don't figure out extreme longevity anytime soon. A few more years or even decades, okay, any more and you have even more old people at the top of society with even more power.

[xvector]

We already have a concentration of wealth and power. It's frightening that you think the solution to that is literally ending living, breathing, and dreaming beings rather than solving the actual societal issues at hand. It is like using a nuclear explosion - with all the associated death and destruction - to hammer in a nail.

Next time we come across a fundamental social issue, should we just kill everyone involved?

We can give people long, happy lives - as long as they want - while solving societal issues on a separate track. There is no reason to use death as a sledgehammer for an issue that is not more valuable than life.

It is, actually, kind of insulting to imply that people on the opposite spectrum of the rich don't want to live long, don't want to spend time with their family, hopes and loves - that they are expendable in the name of crudely brute-forcing some arbitrary wealth equation which is apparently more important to you than their very lives.

I would be quite happy being poor and getting to spend as long as I want with the loves of my life. Being poor barely even registers compared to the upside. No amount of money can compensate for time spent with loved ones, as anyone that has experienced the death of a loved one can attest to.