[flqn]

A well written fable, but its moral would not be equitable in the world of today. It's inevitable that access to "defeating the dragon" would be available to only the most affluent in society, whom have also led the most comfortable lives. There is no fairness in allowing these people to enjoy extended or indefinite lifespans whilst countless others suffer inhumane conditions only to die early.

[sirobg]

I think medicine gave a good hit to the dragon over the years.

At first only rich people beneficiated from it. But thankfully today medicine advantages are better distributed. We are not equals by any means and some countries are lagging behind, but it is better.

Link to my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39080399

I have good hopes the same pattern could occur here.

[flqn]

Perhaps the "rising tide" takes longer to reach some than others. I hope for a more equitable, fairer future, but it's likely my outlook is somewhat jaded.

[wholinator2]

I agree, the tide analogy kinda breaks down here though. We're all familiar that it's somewhat rare that a technological advancement goes from no usage to film and wide distribution in one step. New technologies are distributed only to the rich precisely because they are time and resource intensive to develop and can only be feasibly prepared via a process which will inevitably occur costs that the majority of humans will not be able to meet. But you _need_ those first few rich people, because the money they put in starts the feedback cycle that would not be able to start otherwise. Ideally this then begins a process of optimization which gradually allows these products to become available to everyone.

Inequality is the price of innovation, but it doesn't have to be paid forever.

[sirobg]

Honestly I also get your take. I think it will depend on the "thing" that will enable us to live longer and healthier.

If it is something very expensive and an overnight discovery, then it is likely that a dystopian era will occur... Just imagine some kind of tyrant (as a reference to the fable!) reigning over a country for 100+ years.

But it could also be somewhat like what happened with medicine: the sum of smaller improvements, some more expensive than others, years after years.

[shiroiuma]

If a tyrant reigns over a country for centuries, it's because the people there want him in power.

[nradov]

The major increases in human lifespan have come from public sanitation, food safety, vaccinations, antibiotics, and trauma care. The rest of medicine has had only a small impact.

[ghodith]

Imagine a world where immortality is given to 1% of the populace per year such that in 100 years everyone is immortal, but it is given in order of decreasing wealth.

Now imagine a world in which no one is immortal for 99 years, but on the 100th year everyone gains immortality at once.

The latter is vastly more equitable, but to choose such a world would be horrific in cost of lives.

I can imagine the dystopia that would come from an undying elite ruling over a mortal underclass. However, in any situation short of that extreme, I would never promote anything that would slow the search for immortality. Especially not for the mere bog standard modern conception of equity; crab-bucket mentality here will only serve to keep us all scrabbling in the dirt.

[narcraft]

This is an argument against pursuing equitability as an end in and of itself

[flqn]

I disagree, it's more an argument that even though advancement of human capability can bring great gains (defeating the dragon) we need to pursue equitability in these gains or otherwise they are unethically allocated.

The rising tide should raise ALL boats, otherwise inequitability will lead to social instability as seen througout human history so far.

[benlivengood]

While I agree that modern societies and especially global wealth are very inequitable I think medicine is one of the areas where it is almost universally agreed in practice to raise all boats. Generic medications are made available, foreign aid is often in the form of medicines and medical support, and global institutions are funded with the aim of raising all boats. Should life extension become possible through medicine or treatments it seems likely that the existing process of trying to achieve global medical equity will continue. Clearly life extension will be very highly valued and if it is out of reach of 95% or 99% of the human population there will be intense pressure to socialize its benefits to everyone. Where I can see problems is if life extension is out of reach of 50% or 75% of the world population due to material/equipment/personnel costs; that's a lot harder to socialize globally and would be similar to advanced cancer treatments and organ transplants/replacements which could be seen as the leading edge of longevity treatments.

I don't think there's a moral argument against expensive cancer/organ treatments being made available in wealthy countries; it doesn't seem like any progress on treating those diseases will be made at all if the treatments can't be made available, regardless of their extreme inequity.

[D-Coder]

> It's inevitable that access to "defeating the dragon" would be available to only the most affluent in society, whom have also led the most comfortable lives.

I don't see that it's inevitable at all. (a) The solution may be very affordable. (b) Any government that does not get the treatment to all citizens is likely be voted out or overthrown.