|
|
|
|
|
by Rubinsalamander
1274 days ago
|
|
Dictator could pay more for it but would probably be to paranoid to actually do it until its proven technologically.
So my bet would be on the Noble Prize winner because of curiosity and good connections to the people working on the technology. If the technology first emerges you could probably get it quite cheaply because its not proven yet. Afterwards there will be a scarity due to everyone wanting it which will drive prices up.
In the long run it becomes a free commodity due to being a net saving for governments. But even if the rich and ruthless get it first, that doesnt matter much in the long run.
Medical improvements tend to get cheaper with time.
The incentives are there to provide it to everyone. And especially so in a democracy. |
|
Immortality also doesn’t equal invincibility. One can get sick, one can brake their bones and still suffer. With assumption that immortality would come with great regenerative capabilities - would that include teeth as well? What would happen if we’d lost some due to accident? Would it extend to limbs?
I think main question is why one would like to be immortal? Experiencing thing is nice thing, but with great biological change world would change too. Population would grow and scarcity would be even worse. Probably people would work most of the time just to be able to sleep (due housing shortage) and eat (due food shortage as a result of decreased production area).
It’s possible that bigger chunks of our lives (except “the winners”) would consist of work (another prior example - while we work less for last couple centuries, work devices are omnipresent falsifying data, and we still work much more than in pre-industrial times [1])
If you hadn’t had chance I’d recommend Upload show available on Amazon Prime. It’s somewhat tangential (as it’s endless virtual afterlife) but it touches some possible issues relatable to our discussion
[1]: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...