No, he presents a valid problem, what if rich people would automatically mean smarter, faster, stronger (harder) people? It would turn the current divide between rich and poor into a chasm.
I doubt they wouldn't demonize the poor as the lesser species, much like Americans did to Native Americans and British did to their colonies?
Another problem that might present itself is that often people have to die for new ideas to be accepted. Think of racist uncle, but now think he can live for a thousand years.
Thinking stuff like that will 'trickle down' is a fallacy. Just look at the American health system.
"...what if rich people would automatically mean smarter, faster, stronger (harder) people?"
Why is that part of the problem? The easiest way to get very rich is to start out rich and I'm having difficulty believing that there is any strong correlation between being "smarter, faster, stronger" and the ability to accumulate money.
What if your racist uncle, crazy and none-too-bright, can live for a thousand years and owns everything?
Yes, inheritance is obviously the easiest way to be very rich. However, it's not the most common way. Far from it, in fact. Only 30% of those on the Forbes 400 list, for example, grew up in wealthy families.
30%, under the circumstances that anyone who becomes wealthy has to eventually turn their wealth over to someone else. Because the wealthy person is dead.
No, he presents a valid problem, what if rich people would automatically mean smarter, faster, stronger (harder) people? It would turn the current divide between rich and poor into a chasm.
He presents an irrelevant problem. OK, what if it would? So what?
Right now, do you say "rich people can afford more medicine and thereby live longer, therefore we should not develop medicine for anyone, to keep things fair"?
Do you say "rich people can afford more food and live healthier, therefore we should do away with agriculture and everyone should be a subsistence farmer to make it fair"?
Do you say "rich people can afford more education about health, and thereby live longer. Therefore we should forbid people from learning to make it fair"?
De you say "many poor/working class people have to work as basically indentured servants to survive, therefore they are better off dead"?
No, you don't.
There is a rift between rich and poor.
It's better to have inequality and life, than equality and death.
I'm not saying that. I said it's best to have equality and life. Please don't warp my words. The GP has a point, if flawed one at that.
Extending life by a certain amount isn't bad, it's bad if only the rich can have it. Also directly extending life is a huge boon, I think it puts many other methods (even if it's +20 years) in the dust.
I think maybe, just maybe there can be an option between only the rich can have it and none can have it, i.e. all can have it, some sooner than others.
A great many people put all sorts of things that don't exist (ideologies, dreams, wishes) as more important than the suffering and death of real live actual humans who are really here on earth and really alive.
No. They've rationally decided that the quality of a life is more important than simple quantity.
Please realize that, if someone else disagrees with you (even if you don't understand their position), that does not mean that they are crazy. It doesn't even mean that they are wrong.
I doubt they wouldn't demonize the poor as the lesser species, much like Americans did to Native Americans and British did to their colonies?
Another problem that might present itself is that often people have to die for new ideas to be accepted. Think of racist uncle, but now think he can live for a thousand years.
Thinking stuff like that will 'trickle down' is a fallacy. Just look at the American health system.