I don't know about that, these lines of thinking seem dismissive. There are many valid lines of thought I've read right here on HN-- like one was if 75% of the 1800s generation were alive would society be as progressive and advanced as we are now, or would the elites like JP Morgan think we need to regulate the Internet for pushing unamerican ideals? I don't know how actually character, but many from that time weren't a fan of new political or social ideas.

But I can also think of a few others. Will my poor cousin India, me, and the millionaire rapper Lil Jon all have equal access, or will cost 50 million? Or, if giants like Rockafeller could continue to gain experience and acquire more money indefinitely would the economy be the same way it is today? Another thing to consider is; death can be an equalizing factor-- Steve Jobs died and now he's not part of the labor market. But if he were, he'd certainly get hired over any newcomers. Now multiply that times 1000 as more and more exceptional people become common. There will also come a point where the planet will be overpopulated and we have to choose who gets to live forever and who has to die. Ect, ect..

I think these ideas really need to be answered before people will be comfortable with the idea of a technology that allows some to live forever.