Hacker News Reader

Immortality is totally selfish and uninspiring, and really just a bad comms strategy to recruit more tech progressives. We need a better vision for how it'll make the world more Good and Just, improve lives, and make things more egalitarian, instead of helping privileged people just continue to enjoy their status and wealth.

View on HN

Aging and death is an enormous drain on society, emotionally, financially and in myriad other ways. Years leading to death are often uncomfortable or miserable. Extended friends and families are affected in their freedoms, finances, and mental health. Thus it seems reasonable to expect huge, across-the-board gains in human flourishing and well-being, if we could somehow eliminate aging and death. Nor does that mean we couldn't work in parallel to address inequality, oppression and suffering in other ways.

Regarding "huge, across-the-board gains in human flourishing and well-being," how do you envision economics and labor would play out? What does this look like with regard to resource allocation?

I'm not omniscient nor an economist, I have no idea.

Here's a comparison though: War is another of those realities—like aging and death—that we seem to have normalized and accepted at a cultural level. It's fair to ask how economics, labor and allocation would play out once a civilization stops dumping a third of its resources into the destructive act of war, but to ask whether we should end the war, just because we're uncertain of the answers, strikes me as absurd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com