Should immortality be only available to the Wealthy.

reply to post by Hijinx


Neat thinking that. But wealth so often brings power which is the real drug,

Just the thought of some of the most obnoxious wealthy gits I have worked for or met, staying around with only their own ilk for real company seems quite a fitting unpleasantness for hoarding their trillions and not making the world a better place. I don't want much more than my 70 + because I am already feeling my age, getting tired, crotchety and creaky and today I did a first, I sent the rudest letter I have ever written to someone who in my view deserved a few home truths - right jobsworth, but by jeez did I feel better afterwards. The only use for old age is not giving a damn.

crazyewok

NavyDoc

How would such a third option even be possible? Everything has a cost.

I dont know. But until we can figure out free access for all and not just for a few then I think we are not ready for such tec as it would rip the social frabric of the world apart.

Can you see people just happly willing to live meagre 70 year life spans when most the politicans and bankers are living forever?
I dont. I see riots and cival wars. You think the police and armed forces will protect some of these elites when they and there family most likley wont get such treatment? Free market will be just as destructive as goverment control on this.

Free market is not the be all and end all and the prefect awnser to everything im afraid any more than goverment control is. Free market has its limits and your looking at one.

Then, there is a conundrum that is unsolvable. You cannot raise one group up but eliminate those you think undeserving. The initial problem is the concept that the wealthy are evil and exploitive and underserving. If you cannot get past that prejudice, you cannot get past any advancement, because those with more will profit in any system.

Steve jobs had the world by the tail, but all of his money could not save him. Now, I'm guessing that you celebrated at the death of a class enemy, but he was no more evil nor more good than anyone else and his wealth did not save him.

Let's say that J. K. Rowling was afraid of dying. Her motivations are irrelevant. Perhaps she had more books in her that she wanted to write, perhaps she wanted to see her great grandchildren, perhaps she was afraid of the great unknown like all of us. Would you make a law forbidding her to spend her own money to find a cure? If she spent a billion dollars and find a solution, she has let the genie out of the bag and now that technology is out there. She may have spent a billion to save her own life, but now that technology is out there and can be used to save other lives. Is she then evil, just because you hate rich people, or is she a hero because she funded ground breaking research?

crazyewok

NavyDoc


So you are saying that no technology should be developed unless it can be provided to everyone, all at once, immediately, without cost , and without either the free market nor the state being involved?

Sounds like a recipe for staying in the Stone Age with no technology being developed. How would you enforce this no life extending technology development rule?

We are not talking TV or computers here but the human life span.

Fact is I dont know. Im not a sociologist .

But if we had you freemarket it would rip the world appart!

Can you really see a fucntioning society with Bankers and politican living millions of years and everyone else living for the bog standard 70 just because they dont have the cash? Really how do you think that will work out? You honnestly cant see rampent crime, riots and civil wars? How do you think will enforce the laws of the free market when the theifs and looters come for the riches fountin of youth?

Nonsense. Technology is technology, be it life saving or convenience. You promote and let a free market develop the technology and it become available to everyone in time. Do you hate technology if it is not available to everyone for free all at once?

NavyDoc
The initial problem is the concept that the wealthy are evil and exploitive and underserving. If you cannot get past that prejudice, you cannot get past any advancement, because those with more will profit in any system.

No you miss quoting me AGAIN. IM starting to view this as slander. I just dont think the rich have anymore or less right to life than anyone else. When it comes to LIFE AND DEATH we should all be equal and have the same oppountitys regardless of money. How you live is another matter, I dont care if they live in a mansion or have private jets I don't care as long as it was all legally obtained. But when it comes to who has the right to actually life? Well that should be for all, everyone should have the right to LIFE to me thats the most fundamental human right.

NavyDoc
Now, I'm guessing that you celebrated at the death of a class enemy,

Again with the miss quoting! IM very near to reporting you to a mod on this issue as misquoting and attributing or assuming views to ones is a T&C offence. STOP!

I have no problem with Steve Jobs. He gained his money legally. I have no issue with him. But at the end of the day his life is no more or less valuable than yours or mine. He had the SAME right to life any other human. His had no more right to live than anyone else.

NavyDoc
Let's say that J. K. Rowling was afraid of dying. Her motivations are irrelevant. Perhaps she had more books in her that she wanted to write, perhaps she wanted to see her great grandchildren, perhaps she was afraid of the great unknown like all of us. Would you make a law forbidding her to spend her own money to find a cure? If she spent a billion dollars and find a solution, she has let the genie out of the bag and now that technology is out there. She may have spent a billion to save her own life, but now that technology is out there and can be used to save other lives. Is she then evil,

R&D is a huge difference. Is she spend billions on that research great! But after the genie is out the bottle then that technology should be available to everyone. Anyone that wants the extra years should get it. Money,class, skills, race should be all irrelevant.

NavyDoc
Is she then evil, just because you hate rich people, or is she a hero because she funded ground breaking research?

I demand a apolagy. NOW. You miss attributing views and opinion to me I DO NOT HOLD. I don't hate the rich. I just think that life is a fundamental human right. Be it rich or poor everyone had the right to life and if one class of human is restricted to 70 years and another group 1000's? Thats a breach of those rights. Right/Left issue to me are irrelevent on this.

NavyDoc
[ let a free market develop the technology and it become available to everyone in time.

And in that time millions or billion of people who lack the money die why a select few dont and could live many more lifetimes whch would give a HUGE advantage. A extra few life times of education and resource collection would allow a very select few to monopolise the market makeing any competition void and pointless.


Plus you havent answered my queations. If this tec came about and only the rich could gain access to it do you expect it to go down peacefully? can you really see billion quietly accepting death when a select few dont? And do you really see the police and army procteing those select few if they are doomed to death too?

crazyewok

NavyDoc
[ let a free market develop the technology and it become available to everyone in time.

And in that time millions or billion of people who lack the money die why a select few dont and could live many more lifetimes whch would give a HUGE advantage. A extra few life times of education and resource collection would allow a very select few to monopolise the market makeing any competition void and pointless.


Plus you havent answered my queations. If this tec came about and only the rich could gain access to it do you expect it to go down peacefully? can you really see billion quietly accepting death when a select few dont? And do you really see the police and army procteing those select few if they are doomed to death too?

So you'd rather have none benefit at all rather than develop it so all could enjoy?


As for your question--grand revolution? We don't see it now do we? We don't see the masses storming the walls of parliament as long as they get their welfare check, do we? How would this be any different?

OF course the police would protect law and order. That is their job. The question is do you want things to grow for the betterment of all, or will you be destructive and smash budding technology out of sheer jealously. I'm sorry, there is no system that lifts those who you like, but destroys those who you do not like at the same time. Everything is a continuum. No development is instaneous.

Hence forth I decree that all technology be open sourced and all patents abolished.

"Free Market" is a scam by tptb which you have whole heartily fell for; hook, line and sinker.

If the Government isn't providing the service then a third party is.
If there is a third party providing a service, the Government then has to regulate it.
If there is no regulation and a third party service, then you can be damned sure that you have a corrupt system where the larger power will literally squash anyone who dares try and counter them.

There is no free market where the human race will benefit.

The ONLY way to go is open source everything and ensure that ANYONE with the inclination can either purchase the item at a cheap rate (because everyone has the tech) or find the components and build it themselves.

Just like Government "partisanship"... It doesn't exist.
It's all one big entity.

When will people start seeing through the bull# that is used to control us and keep us in order???

Sovaka
Hence forth I decree that all technology be open sourced and all patents abolished.

"Free Market" is a scam by tptb which you have whole heartily fell for; hook, line and sinker.

If the Government isn't providing the service then a third party is.
If there is a third party providing a service, the Government then has to regulate it.
If there is no regulation and a third party service, then you can be damned sure that you have a corrupt system where the larger power will literally squash anyone who dares try and counter them.

There is no free market where the human race will benefit.

The ONLY way to go is open source everything and ensure that ANYONE with the inclination can either purchase the item at a cheap rate (because everyone has the tech) or find the components and build it themselves.

Just like Government "partisanship"... It doesn't exist.
It's all one big entity.

When will people start seeing through the bull# that is used to control us and keep us in order???

edit on 24/1/2014 by Sovaka because: (no reason given)

And then no one with bother to invent anything because mindless idiots will steal the results of their hard work and we all rush back to the stone age. Well done!

reply to post by NavyDoc


What a load of crap.

It has been proven over and over that innovation comes from those that do the work for free.

Millions of people around the world apply their free time to open source projects year after year because they want to contribute to something they love and enjoy doing.

I am literally floored at such a comment.

reply to post by NavyDoc


So what if you cant pay. Im your meager 70 years you cant land a high paying job? You just die? How can you have the right to life if your dead?

You can still speak without a radio you cant live if your dead.

And you havent anwserd the queation! How do you expect socity to respond when the majority are doomed to death because they have not enough money while a select few live forever?

Sovaka
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

What a load of crap.

It has been proven over and over that innovation comes from those that do the work for free.

Millions of people around the world apply their free time to open source projects year after year because they want to contribute to something they love and enjoy doing.

I am literally floored at such a comment.

edit on 24/1/2014 by Sovaka because: (no reason given)

LOL. You must be sarcastic. Please point out great innovations that people did for absolutely nothing in return.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Linux.

'nuff said.

crazyewok
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

So what if you cant pay. Im your meager 70 years you cant land a high paying job? You just die? How can you have the right to life if your dead?

You can still speak without a radio you cant live if your dead.

And you havent anwserd the queation! How do you expect socity to respond when the majority are doomed to death because they have not enough money while a select few live forever?

Because the question is a stupid one. Technology, as it is introduced and used, spreads to everyone.

Now, answer this question, would you ban all life saving technology if it was not available to everyone all at once at no cost?

Sovaka
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Linux.

'nuff said.

Yeah, Linux saved the world.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Wow... It's either all or nothing for you isn't it;

Here are a couple more;

Bitcoin
3D Printers
Apache (Very large portion of the internet operates off of Apache)
Global Village Construction Set - opensourceecology.org...

And since you mock Linux so much... You are aware that the MacOS is a Linux variant yeah?
I'd say Apple has shaped a great portion of our mobile technology world.
And that was off the back of an open source program.

Also don't forget all the crazy gadgets and thingies that are being Kickstarted.
Yes there is funding for them, but they are made by people with an idea.
They weren't prompted to come up with it.

Use your brains damn it and stop arguing for the sake of it.

.: ETA :.
en.wikipedia.org...

People eyes on the ball please and not one another, no more insults or profanity

Sauron
Super-Moderator

Sovaka
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Wow... It's either all or nothing for you isn't it;

Here are a couple more;

Bitcoin
3D Printers
Apache (Very large portion of the internet operates off of Apache)
Global Village Construction Set - opensourceecology.org...

And since you mock Linux so much... You are aware that the MacOS is a Linux variant yeah?
I'd say Apple has shaped a great portion of our mobile technology world.
And that was off the back of an open source program.

Also don't forget all the crazy gadgets and thingies that are being Kickstarted.
Yes there is funding for them, but they are made by people with an idea.
They weren't prompted to come up with it.

Use your brains damn it and stop arguing for the sake of it.

.: ETA :.
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 24/1/2014 by Sovaka because: (no reason given)

All of those were designed by people who wanted and are getting benefit from their inventions, so as examples, you fail to prove your point.

Of course they have an idea and they were not prompted, but they didn't create, research, and develop the idea for nothing,

Sauron
People eyes on the ball please and not one another, no more insults or profanity

Sauron
Super-Moderator

Fair enough, however, he started with the "you hate people and want to destroy the world" rhetoric. Read the thread, I didn't go personal until he did.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Just because they benefited from what they established... Doesn't lessen the fact that the information is now out there for anyone to use freely.
Complete with guides and instructions on how to replicate and get up and running.

That's the whole idea behind open source and that is one of the motivators out there for open source projects.
To create something that you can benefit from, while at the same time, giving it out to everyone that wants it as well for free.

Being able to profit from something you give away for free takes a lot more skill and effort then making something and selling it.

It's the main argument the MPAA and RIAA use against pirates... They are stealing our content and we aren't getting anything for it.

Yet open sources may receive income or royalties and yet the people down the line still get the end product for free.
Or as free as they can get depending on the resources they have on hand.

Your whole argument of 'but the people are getting money out of it' is moot.

The point of the argument is that the product is developed by groups of people (applying their time for free), and then everyone who is interested, benefits without having to pay a cent.