Hacker News Reader

Comment by fredley | Hacker News Reader

Do we really want to live in a world where the billionaires live forever?

Economically, and historically, the more wealthy tend to try out the expensive, new technologies, then as market forces play out, such technologies become cheaper, to where most average workers can afford them (see genome sequencing costs decline over the past 15 years.)

We need wealthy people to try out the expensive new advances. Just because someone is wealthy doesn’t necessarily mean they’re apart of the “evil billionaire” archetype, which it seems to be what you’re alluding to. Obviously cases exist where this is true, but let’s not paint with such a wide brush.

Didn't the price of insulin in the US nearly triple in 10 years? The market is not always particularly efficient.

"Big Pharma" is a cartel with more steps (via semi-emergent regulatory capture). Nothing to do with healthcare in the United States is anywhere close to a free market.

One of the counterpoints is that it's not the same insulin, it's constantly new and improved insulin that functions better than the insulin we had 10 years ago, but of course each improvement comes with a price increase.

I don't know if that's true or not, but it still only costs about $6 per vial to manufacture human grade insulin: https://www.businessinsider.com/insulin-prices-could-be-much...

Apologies for citing Business Insider. It was just conveniently on the first page of Google search results.

Yes, but this is considered by many to be scandalous and I doubt it will continue to be so high-priced long-term.

Agreed. I think. It is interesting how much difference in meaning the space in "a part of" vs "apart of" makes.

Let's make everything about "billionaires" and completely ignore any good news.

To be clear: I do not see this as good news.

The only way new life and new ideas arise is in the wake of the deceased. Death is neccessary for life. If those at the top can further cement and accumulate their wealth and power due to living longer lives, this is bad for everyone else.

Maybe not: the only way we're actually going to realistically colonize space as a species is if people live so long that a few hundred years in a spaceship is a reasonable sacrifice. I would imagine that the same people who were willing to spend fortunes on rejuvenation would also be willing to spend fortunes exploring new galaxies.

Many science fiction writers who envisioned generations born and passing away on spaceships making their intergalactic journey to their new home world would disagree.

Why even invest in the health system at all then?

How does it matter if a billionaire lives or dies? Their wealth is simply spread out to heirs or pet projects of theirs, no difference from when they're actually alive. Companies take on a life of their own, so Apple hasn't been damaged in any significant way after Jobs, likewise with Gates, Sergey & Larry etc.

Taxation will catch up, but I don't see any significant negative effects to society.

I don't mind them living forever. Why should I care?

Take a look at Altered Carbon on Netflix, or other dystopian fiction featuring vastly extended lifespans for a few privileged individuals. Even Ad Vitam (also on Netflix), where the treatment is widely available, is pretty dystopian.

We may find that vastly extended human lifespan is a case of "be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it."

The implication of the article is that the treatment may not be extremely costly. Idk why you immediately start talking about billionaires. The divide would likely be between the poor and the middle class.

A vial of insulin costs $6 to manufacture, but up to $300 to purchase without insurance. Simply because the treatment is inexpensive to manufacture does not mean it will be affordable to average humans.

You can get a vial of generic insulin at Walmart for 20 bucks or so. This treatment would go generic as well and then become affordable to the masses.

Even before then a company would rather get $200 a month from a large group of people than $50,000 from a small group.

There’s a balance that’s upset due to insurance - companies charging what people can actually afford to maximize their profits.

In the US

The World is seemingly already approaching the upper limit on the number of humans it can support.

It's ok, only the middle class+ in developed countries will have the cure for ageing, and their birth rates are quite low.

Occupy Mars

I don't think that this research is going in that direction. It may end up being a very cheap and effective treatment/cure for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or other maladies that affect the old disproportionately. Also, it seems that there is hope that it will be a cheap treatment.

Your hatred of the successful is likely poisoning your life and making you miserable.

Luck is not success.

Indeed it is not, but it can be a cause for success however.
As the grandparent said, your hatred of the successful is likely poisoning your life and making you miserable. Why not try to achieve what they did instead?

Yes of course, Gates, Musk, Buffet, Ford, these are just evil mediocrities that got lucky, you are right. Anyone could have done what they did, but for lack of luck.

Gates at least, admits it was in large part luck. There are brilliant hard working people of equal caliber who die in ignominy every single day.
"‘I don’t deserve my fortune,’ Mr Gates added. ‘Nobody does. It has come through timing, luck, and through people I worked with.".
Is he brilliant, assuredly, and incredibly hardworking as well. Does that change the fact that millions of brilliant incredibly hardworking people die in poverty and obscurity every day?
Luck is the differentiator for the most part. Being born in the right place, to the right family, growing up with the right people, during the right time. It takes a person of consummate focus and skill to take advantage of their circumstances, but let's not pretend captains of industry in Silicon Valley would have been equally successful born the son of a welder in Calcutta.

The parent comment didn't make any such claims or use any vulgarity. I think you are putting words in their mouth and taking a very uncharitable interpretation of what was said.

Fair enough, how do you interpret what he said? I removed the mild vulgarity, I agree it was not needed.

Many people are quite talented and intelligent. Yes, even as intelligent as any of the billionaire household names. There are people that could, in theory, do what those billionaires did to achieve their success.
But ultimately, some people will become billionaires and others of equal qualification and skill will not. This is because of luck and circumstance.
Not "anyone" can do what the billionaires did, but some people, somewhere, certainly could if not for poor circumstances or sheer bad luck.

That is a completely reasonable position with which I happen to (violently) agree. That is not however the position implied by the parent, in my view.

No matter your feelings about billionaires, we can all hopefully agree that it's better than dying in a world where no one "lives forever", which is what we've had until now.

All technologies become more accessible, optimized, and inexpensive over time. A world in which anyone can live forever very rapidly becomes a world in which everyone can.

See the Netflix series Altered Carbon to see how society could evolve when that happens.

You mean trillionaires?

WTF? That is really your takeaway from an article that suggests the fountain of youth is in reach? "Vaccines! Do you really want a world where billionaires do not get small pox???"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com