Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bladerunner_35 t1_iun3pg8 wrote

Name a beneficial technology that doesn’t benefit the ultra rich exponentially?

I’ve got the polio vaccine and seat belt. Although the ultra rich drives safer cars and have better health care…

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun40fx wrote

What is the point of this comment? Do the math yourself.

Everybody ages and dies. What's more profitable, sell it only to the rich or to the masses?

Simple logic.

5

bladerunner_35 t1_iun4d5u wrote

Wow. I would give a lot to have your optimistic view of the world.

Surely you’ve heard of Aids or Diabetes or Malaria?

−1

AwesomeLowlander t1_iun8bh1 wrote

> optimistic view of the world.

Only necessary if you live in the states

3

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iun51vl wrote

Surely you've heard supply and demand. Everybody ages and dies. It'll be impossible to get re-elected if you don't make sure it's affordable or even the society to function.

I don't care about how you cope with aging and death. What you're saying makes no sense.

0

bladerunner_35 t1_iuo9ole wrote

The richest country in the world doesn’t have universal healthcare and the average life expectancy for the US hasn’t recovered from the decline during covid. Every other first world country have both universal healthcare and a (much) higher life expectancy.

US have one of the highest number of billionaires per capita in the world.

The simple facts are against you mate.

0

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuoboc2 wrote

High infectious disease mortality rate is a side effect of immunosenescence, to spell it out to you, aged immune system.

Trillions of dollars are wasted every year to take care of old people.

Logic is against you mate.

1

bladerunner_35 t1_iuoet9s wrote

You are arguing against yourself.

First you say that everyone will benefit from a technology that increases life expectancy.

Now you say that healthcare is wasted on people based on their age.

Checkmate, mate.

Incidentally, how old are you? Just curious, don’t feel like you have to answer. It just seems as something a young person would say.

0

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuqga57 wrote

No, I'm telling you that these therapies will pay for themselves, since we waste trillions of dollars on old people.

Any government with a brain will make sure it'll be for everyone just like the covid vaccine.

You've lost and haven't even realized it.

2

bladerunner_35 t1_iuqkw7o wrote

You still haven’t answered my question why you think this technology will be universally distributed when we there’s still a lot of poor people dying from hunger, lack of clean water and preventable diseases?

Why is it that diabetics, in the US no less, are dying because they cannot pay for insulin?

Surely it pays more to have them pay for insulin over a lifetime rather than price gouging?

The world isn’t rational and you are deluded.

−1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iurazq8 wrote

>we there’s still a lot of poor people dying from hunger, lack of clean water and preventable diseases?

Because it's a different kind of problem. How many tons of food the US throws away again? Do you tell cancer researchers to stop working because there is world hunger first?

1

bladerunner_35 t1_ius1cb2 wrote

That is no the issue we are debating.

This technology will be researched until we have achieved immortality.

1

bladerunner_35 t1_ius22wv wrote

That is no the issue we are debating.

This technology will be researched until we have achieved immortality.

We are debating your silly notion that it will somehow be distributed evenly amongst rich and poor alike.

“The future has already arrived. It's just not evenly distributed yet.”

  • William Gibson

Cancer is a good example. With the right healthcare several cancers can already today be prevented or removed. In many cases the resources aren’t invested to help people.

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_ius9eeb wrote

>Imagine Elon or Jeff living 200+ years. You don’t have to imagine. Someone already did and wrote a book called Altered Carbon. It’s a Netflix series too. Bad news for anyone but the ultra rich.

We're debating your idiotic notion that the ultra rich will be able to get this only because muh altered carbon!

1

bladerunner_35 t1_iutlcjs wrote

Only because you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge my many examples of present day inequalities.

You have yet to produce a single credible argument why a life prolonging technology wouldn’t benefit the ultra rich much greater and to the detriment of everyone else.

We know it is because there are no arguments - I just want to you to continue to imply it by your stumbling sputterings.

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuv8hrd wrote

>You have yet to produce a single credible argument why a life prolonging technology wouldn’t benefit the ultra rich much greater and to the detriment of everyone else.

Because it's more profitable to sell it to everyone than a few select ultra rich.

Plus aging costs us trillions every year. Your non existent argument: "muh I saw a stupid movie!! I coped really well. I like to cope!"

1

bladerunner_35 t1_iuv8krl wrote

Sorry bud, you already said this almost verbatim.

Try again, please.

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuvctix wrote

Βecause I'm responding to the same comments, essentially.

1

bladerunner_35 t1_iuvfe42 wrote

You’re not tho.

I’ve given you several examples of healthcare inequalities if today.

You haven’t given a single example if why this technology would be different beyond that it would be cost-effective.

I’ll ask again. Why would this be universally provided when basic medicine and healthcare isn’t provided today?

Our current economical system isn’t cost-effective beyond the red line of a single corporation. Enormous resources are wasted because of this.

Come on now mate, you’re making us both look bad. You can do better. I am sure there is a point in there somewhere if you can only form it into a coherent thought.

1

Responsible-Hat5816 OP t1_iuvglux wrote

None of these examples explain why only the ultra wealthy would get this.

It makes economic sense to fund and subsidize, just like vaccines.

>We show that a slowdown in aging that increases life expectancy by 1 year is worth US$38 trillion, and by 10 years, US$367 trillion. Ultimately, the more progress that is made in improving how we age, the greater the value of further improvements.
>
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00080-0

1