Consider this, those that command most resources will be able to get this tech, not you. This isn't everyone gets an iPhone. It's the richest get the best health insurance.
If it was invented in isolation of all other tech, it would still be in the interests of the rich that everyone else got to use it.
More users, more awareness of limitations and side effects and how to treat them.
Longer working lives for the labour force, less need for expensive pensions and expensive old age care.
But this isn't in isolation, the changes to AI and robotics, even without AGI/ASI or von Neumann replication, will make us unfathomably better off by 2050 (and with, no more labour). What does "rich" even mean when anti-aging stops being a choice between "snake oil" and "in mice"?
> It would still be in the interests of the rich that everyone else got to use it.
Why though? More users? Economy is already moving to a free-to-pay model. You earn more catering to rich people than the middle class/poor. Look at hardware nVidia is earning more extracting money from the richest people buying 4090 and 4080 than from rest, and that's dwarfed by their AI offerings.
The way I see it, basically you earn money from whales, rich people and you toss breadcrumbs to the rest.
> So, kill off all of humanity to make sure you get rid of the worst ones?
No one said to kill off all of humanity. Certainly 'bad' people have died in the long (short) history of humanity without the remainder of the species disappearing.
Life doesn't occur without death. Death is a necessary component. Life _comes from_ death.
I think you misinterpreted the response. They said "humanity" but probably meant "every single human".
You said: "It’s extremely important that we [die] — if not just for getting rid of some of humanity’s worst humans"
Their retort is that this is a very blunt instrument. You are advocating killing literally billions of humans (not all at once), just to make sure you get the bad ones. That's a hell of a lot of collateral damage.
I'm ambivalent on the question of improving healthspan and longevity, but I agree with the other person that this is a bad argument against it.
> You are advocating killing literally billions of humans (not all at once), just to make sure you get the bad ones. That's a hell of a lot of collateral damage.
I think you misinterpreted my comment. I was not advocating for killing. Killing is an unnatural process.
It is not an issue to me if <bad human> lives longer, if I get to enjoy more time with my loved ones, watch humanity build Dyson spheres, explore the galaxy, etc.
Bad humans then become social issues - and those, we can solve.
You live in society, not alone on far side of the moon. In any society including worst communism terror Earth has seen, the worst and most potent humans bubble up to the top, always, without exception.
No mechamism to wipe this clean means absolute dictatorship with no end in sight, you always see it even in democracies, strong persons tend to bend rules as they like and the only stopping power is re-election force, or you end up eith some form of forever putin.
Death brings correction, even if individually of course it sucks pretty badly. Even for just avoiding endless dictatures its necessary.
I think you are mixing up concepts. Curing mortality doesn’t mean it’s impossible to be killed.
Authoritarian regimes don’t end because the dictator gets old and dies, they end because the people rise up against the oppressive government. If mortality was the liberator you imagine it to be then North Korea would already be rid of their nightmare.
> Death brings correction, even if individually of course it sucks pretty badly.
There is no real correction though.
Because for every person who you think that you helped, you should know that those people are going to eventually die anyway, meaning that it was all for naught.
Comprehensive, as in extensively but not necessarily totally? And why as a species rather than as countries, given we don't have a single world government?
Equality issues still exist, but compared to 1924?
Is literacy is a social issue or not? 31% to 87%.
Is extreme poverty? 54% of about 2 billion, now 10% of about 8 billion, reduced in absolute numbers and not just as a percentage.
We haven't. Even simple ones like poverty, hunger, homelessness that are just a matter of admin and money. We've been captured by self-perpetuating and effectively immortal institutions (NGO's and arguably governments) that will not let us solve them because that would mean their own death.
I agree with the spirit of your argument but maybe not the villains you've chosen. Given legislative capture is absolutely a thing I think your criticism is more effectively pointed at the individuals and organizations responsible for funding reelection campaigns for the politicians that aren't obviously servicing the needs of their notional constituency.
So, kill off all of humanity to make sure you get rid of the worst ones? To me that seems... non-optimal.