> VCs promising to invent human immortality 'we're going to solve the problem of death' was the pinnacle of their hubris.
I have a different view. I'm thinking, "finally someone is fucking serious about what should obviously be the goal of everyone". If rich SV people are willing to throw money at something actually useful for a change, I'm all for it.
I disagree. It should not be the goal of everyone because we have hundreds of other larger humanitarian issues on earth than delaying aging & dying. That literally is a "first world problem". Let's fix the crises first
we have hundreds of other larger humanitarian issues on earth than delaying aging & dying
Do we? Preventing people from dying is at the core of what "humanitarian issues" actually means. Yes, too many people die because of violence or starvation or lack of basic medical care, and we should absolutely address those problems, but the effects of aging are harming billions of people and will ultimately kill them.
Death is a guarantee, even if you extend it. While in the United States we may live 70-100, in other countries they live to maybe 40, while child mortality is sky high. It would be awesome if we can close that gap first, instead of making the divide between the rich and poor even wider.
If you can give a million rich people an extra 1000 years of life, is that not as good as giving 100 million poor people an extra 10? Arguably it's better since those thousand years are going to be spent in greater comfort than the 10 years in the other case.
How much should we value global justice relative to human life?
The problem I see with your strawman is that only the rich have the ability to extend age for the rich, further leaving the poor behind who are unable to close the humanitarian gaps on their own. What have we done to deserve to live 1000 years while others starve, other than being born in better circumstances.
That was not a strawman, unless you think I missed something about your position.
The question I asked was how much we should value the extent to which people "deserve" longer life against the moral value inhernet in extended life. You have to show that the fact that the rich have done nothing to "deserve" extended life (which I'll assume is true for the sake of argument) is bad enough to outweigh a million people getting an extra 1000 years of life, regardless of who those people are.
I have a different view. I'm thinking, "finally someone is fucking serious about what should obviously be the goal of everyone". If rich SV people are willing to throw money at something actually useful for a change, I'm all for it.