[D-Coder]

> No, it isn’t sad that we die. It’s extremely important that we do — if not just for getting rid of some of humanity’s worst humans.

So, kill off all of humanity to make sure you get rid of the worst ones? To me that seems... non-optimal.

[Ygg2]

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.

[ben_w]

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"?

[Ygg2]

> 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.

[ben_w]

Why is in the subsequent paragraphs:

> 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

[Ygg2]

First, it's easier to do test on undocumented, homeless and rights deprived people than regular citizens.

Second. If you're that far in the future, the labor will be automatized, who's going to rebel? The automatons?

[ben_w]

> First, it's easier to do test on undocumented, homeless and rights deprived people than regular citizens.

Not if you want to do long term analysis, and rule out confounding variables like the impact of sleeping rough.

Though even if you did, that would still be a demonstration that it won't just be for the rich. Weird demo, suboptimal science, but nevertheless you've now got homeless people stuffed with anti-aging drugs.

> Second. If you're that far in the future, the labor will be automatized, who's going to rebel? The automatons?

It might be automated, but then there's no longer a meaningful distinction between rich and poor. A genuinely fully automated economy, all it takes is one person with a von Neumann replicator to decide everyone should have one, followed by log_2(population)*replication_period, before everyone has them. The former is 33, so even if they take a year starting from bashing rocks with pickaxes, this would still be less than half the current human life expectancy.

A better question is who would want to rebel?

[nullindividual]

> 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.

Walk into an old growth forest some time.

[losvedir]

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.

[nullindividual]

> 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.

[forgetfreeman]

It may be non-optimal but it certainly beats the shit out of most of the alternatives.