If immortality technology existed, but only the rich could purchase it . . .

B

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
Lets say that we invent some new technology that allows one to live forever and perfectly fine.

But it's really expensive, and will always be expensive. Only the top 3% will ever be able to purchase it. And only for themselves and their close family members.

Basically, 97% can't have it.

1) would society outlaw this out of spite?
2) what are your specific thoughts? should it be allowed?

this is not a leading question or a mott-type switcharoo thread.
 
Dr. Krieger said:
Lets say that we invent some new technology that allows one to live forever and perfectly fine.

But it's really expensive, and will always be expensive. Only the top 3% will ever be able to purchase it. And only for themselves and their close family members.

Basically, 97% can't have it.


1) would society outlaw this out of spite?
2) what are your specific thoughts? should it be allowed?
Click to expand...

This is hardly a theoretical situation aside from the fantasy aspect. Wealthy people live far longer, healthier lives now, so the answer to your tard question is no, it would not be outlawed, if for no other reason that the very wealthy already make the laws and they make them to suit themselves.

2. No, it should not be allowed. Lobby should be outlawed, K Street burned down, the revolving door between government and private employment bolted shut, CU reversed, term limits applied, and lawyers barred from government service (except in courtrooms). Further, all public servants should be held to a higher standard as they once were and no government employees should enjoy immunity.
 
1) who even says the genpub would be aware of it? You guys hear about the guy with degenerated nerves getting a rewiring? Or that there is already a cryogenic facility? They already store bodies/heads.

2) Not on this, nope. The rich will always get it first. There will always be rich. The masses, imo will never be granted access to some things.
 
Rune said:
This is hardly a theoretical situation aside from the fantasy aspect. Wealthy people live far longer, healthier lives now, so the answer to your tard question is no, it would not be outlawed, if for no other reason that the very wealthy already make the laws and they make them to suit themselves.

2. No, it should not be allowed. Lobby should be outlawed, K Street burned down, the revolving door between government and private employment bolted shut, CU reversed, term limits applied, and lawyers barred from government service (except in courtrooms). Further, all public servants should be held to a higher standard as they once were and no government employees should enjoy immunity.
Click to expand...

But, are the wealthy more happy? I saw a program on TV about those folks that live in Appalachia and every one said "We didn't know we were poor until the government came in and told us". So this begs the question that you libs always complain about the focus on money, yet you seem singularly focused on what others make as if it is any of your business.

Lastly, using your criteria, your Messiah B. Hussein Obama would not be President. You good with that?

BTW, Dubya didn't have a law degree :)
 
I Love America said:
But, are the wealthy more happy? I saw a program on TV about those folks that live in Appalachia and every one said "We didn't know we were poor until the government came in and told us". So this begs the question that you libs always complain about the focus on money, yet you seem singularly focused on what others make as if it is any of your business.

Lastly, using your criteria, your Messiah B. Hussein Obama would not be President. You good with that?

BTW, Dubya didn't have a law degree :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am good with that, I voted for Hilary (I know she is a lawyer) This is a fantasy thread.
 
Dr. Krieger said:
Lets say that we invent some new technology that allows one to live forever and perfectly fine.

But it's really expensive, and will always be expensive. Only the top 3% will ever be able to purchase it. And only for themselves and their close family members.

Basically, 97% can't have it.

1) would society outlaw this out of spite?
2) what are your specific thoughts? should it be allowed?

this is not a leading question or a mott-type switcharoo thread.
Click to expand...
What if you could make that choice, if you were rich, but you could only live in Detroit?
 
I Love America said:
well your entire political ideology is predicated on fantasy so that works well for you asshat
Click to expand...

Um, no, my ideology is based on reality. Yours is based on incorrect assumptions and lies.

For example, your signature claims you have never been banned, yet your avatar status claims you are Alias, who was banned repeatedly.

Which is true? Your world is so emmeshed in falsehoods, you can't see reality.
 
Rune said:
2. No, it should not be allowed. Lobby should be outlawed, K Street burned down, the revolving door between government and private employment bolted shut, CU reversed, term limits applied, and lawyers barred from government service (except in courtrooms). Further, all public servants should be held to a higher standard as they once were and no government employees should enjoy immunity.
Click to expand...

you believe it shouldn't be allowed? 3% should die because not all of society can have it?
 
I saw a pretty cool documentary on AI and other imminent breakthroughs about a month ago, and there were quite a few people in the medical/technology fields who thought that immortality is actually just around the corner - possibly as soon as mid-century.

Listening to the reasoning, it actually sounded plausible. All you really need is an interface to download your thoughts/consciousness, and the ability to clone yourself....
 
Dr. Krieger said:
rune can you just answer honestly please. I'm not looking for a troll thread
Click to expand...

This is what I believe;

Rune said:
Lobby should be outlawed, K Street burned down, the revolving door between government and private employment bolted shut, CU reversed, term limits applied, and lawyers barred from government service (except in courtrooms). Further, all public servants should be held to a higher standard as they once were and no government employees should enjoy immunity.
Click to expand...

What do you think would happen were that the case?
 
I would not want to outlaw it, I would want to find ways to make it more accessable and less expensive. I would also not want such technology for myself... who would want to live forever?
 
Sorry, can't suspend disbelief on this one. Maybe if we made it more realistic, something like life extending genetic therapy that would take a normal lifespan out to about 120-150 years, that is something I could buy into. It would still be horrendously expensive, but you could weigh that expense against the lifetime of treatment costs for diseases and illnesses and causes of death that are not trauma related. The practice of nonemergency medicine would pretty much cease to exist. Those big bad evil insurance companies would also cease to exist. Under those circumstances, it would kind of be a no-brainer. But it would also be a knee-jerk reaction (to make this a accessible by anyone). Whether it's your scenario or mine, think of the unintended consequences. Social Security? Veterans benefits? The consumption of resources? And we're not talking about just this country. Can you imagine that moron in North Korea getting ahold of this technology? Personally, I don't want to be sticking around here for even a century. I think I would probably refuse the treatment as long as some guerrilla from Health and Human Services wasn't tying me down to a table to give me the shot. Let the rich have it, I don't care.
 
Jarod said:
I would not want to outlaw it, I would want to find ways to make it more accessable and less expensive. I would also not want such technology for myself... who would want to live forever?
Click to expand...

you say that now jarod. when the empty unforgiving void starts looming before you, maybe you'll think differently.
 
Dr. Krieger said:
Lets say that we invent some new technology that allows one to live forever and perfectly fine.

But it's really expensive, and will always be expensive. Only the top 3% will ever be able to purchase it. And only for themselves and their close family members.

Basically, 97% can't have it.

1) would society outlaw this out of spite?
2) what are your specific thoughts? should it be allowed?

this is not a leading question or a mott-type switcharoo thread.
Click to expand...

Given the current state of things, I would guess there are only two outcomes...

1) It is banned
2) The people vote idiots into office that will give them this 'for free'; then when we realize it is too expensive they will say 'why do you hate the poor?'
 
Dr. Krieger said:
you say that now jarod. when the empty unforgiving void starts looming before you, maybe you'll think differently.
Click to expand...

You might be right, nobody ever seems to welcome the end. I know my father would have liked to have another 10 years when he died at 73. Im not so sure my grandmother would have asked for more, she was ready at 98.
 
It's a stupid scenario and requires too great of a suspension of disbelief to seriously entertain.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top