Active Entries
- 1: Surge Pricing for Grocery Stores is a Disaster Only Psychopath MBAs Could Love
- 2: Antarctica Day 7: Swimming In the Antaractic Seas
- 3: Restarted my yoga classes, and I discovered I'm a total wreck
- 4: Antarctica: Getting To the Boat and the Disaster That Awaited
- 5: The Enshittification of All That Lives
- 6: How the green energy discourse resembles queer theory
- 7: Tori's Sake & Grill (restaurant, review)
- 8: I'm Not Always Sure I Trust My ADHD Diagonosis
- 9: You can't call it "Moral Injury" when your "morals" are monstrous
- 10: Ebay vs Newmark: You're all just cogs. Accept it. There is no joy in it, but you have no choice.
Style Credit
- Base style: ColorSide by
- Theme: NNWM 2010 Fresh by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2007-02-05 12:12 am (UTC)Any given life extension method will at first be "purchased and used exclusively by the rich," because every major new technology starts out expensive. What always happens is that, as the technology develops further over time, suppliers bring the price down to expand their markets, until eventually (sometimes over generations) it becomes cheap enough for the middle classes and even the poor.
This or course assumes that the technology is not strangled by prohibitions. If that happens, then the process of mass production and distribution takes a LOT longer.
By the way, if life extension is outright banned, the super rich will still have it. It will be the Millionaire Next Door, and eventually YOU, PERSONALLY who will wind up dying younger than was necessary in order to satisfy the envious and spiteful who prohibited the technology's application.
And why, exactly, is it "arrogant" or expressing a philosophy of "everyone else be dammned" to try to stave off death as long as possible? Are you claiming that you are willing to die on statistical schedule, even if you know and can afford a means of avoiding it?