society\'s reaction to \"living forever\"
 

So the "EV of living forever" thread got me thinking about a related topic, which I think is interesting enough to warrant its own thread.

Suppose that we'll have the technology to completely remove the standard human limitations on lifespan and health by the year 2040. Assume that this will, at first, be very expensive technology, so that only the super-rich will be able to afford it. How would you expect society to respond to this state of affairs?

At the present time, roughly half the US feels that they have a divine right to government-provided health care (and many more than half in some other countries). Also, the sale of human organs is illegal, probably because the feeling is that it would translate into some uncomfortable form of rich/poor inequality (aside from arguments involving organ-theft).

Now, say we're in the year 2030 and the 2040 scenario is becoming increasingly clear to everyone. How does a society with the "gov't owes me health care" and the "why should the rich have it so much better?" mentality deal with something like this? I expect that some kind of clamoring would reach fever pitch -- but what exactly would they be pushing for, if "immortality for everyone" just flat-out isn't possible for quite some time (say, decades) beyond the 2040 threshold?

BTW, if you don't think these dates are realistic, just pretend that they're 2090 and 2100 or something -- in other words, save the "it'll never happen" posts for another thread. I'm more curious about the societal consequences here, regardless of when it actually happens.

Re: society\'s reaction to \"living forever\"
 

Honestly, I think the government would make the technology illegal, simply to shut up those that do not have the resources to afford it. They would legalize it once a majority or close to a majority of people could pay for it, as the technology became more efficient and cheaper to produce. The procurement of the technology by the rich would probably still go on underground, kind of like how illegal medical procedures can still go on without government consent.

By the way, I think the "gov't owes me health care" mentality is silly, but it's pretty ingrained in society at the moment so I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.

Re: society\'s reaction to \"living forever\"
 

I think this would make a really good premise for a science fiction novel. In fact, I'd be less than surprised if there weren't one already with this theme.

Re: society\'s reaction to \"living forever\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I think the "gov't owes me health care" mentality is silly, but it's pretty ingrained in society at the moment so I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's silly is the "I think people think the gov't owes them health care" mentality. That's not the argument people make, not even close. It's, "society would be better if the government provided health insurance".

Also, assuming we're talking about the USA here, if legislators get all paranoid about scientists playing god with stem cells, cloning, etc., they're going to ban this for sure.

Finally, the real problem will either be

1) if it becomes widespread, getting people to adjust their lifestyles to almost never having kids, lest the population skyrocket, or

2) if it doesn't become widespread, trying to maintain a stable society when the immortals effectively become a different species.

Re: society\'s reaction to \"living forever\"
 

hg wells wrote a nonfiction book about this and eugenics.

Re: society\'s reaction to \"living forever\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
So the "EV of living forever" thread got me thinking about a related topic, which I think is interesting enough to warrant its own thread.

Suppose that we'll have the technology to completely remove the standard human limitations on lifespan and health by the year 2040. Assume that this will, at first, be very expensive technology, so that only the super-rich will be able to afford it. How would you expect society to respond to this state of affairs?

At the present time, roughly half the US feels that they have a divine right to government-provided health care (and many more than half in some other countries). Also, the sale of human organs is illegal, probably because the feeling is that it would translate into some uncomfortable form of rich/poor inequality (aside from arguments involving organ-theft).

Now, say we're in the year 2030 and the 2040 scenario is becoming increasingly clear to everyone. How does a society with the "gov't owes me health care" and the "why should the rich have it so much better?" mentality deal with something like this? I expect that some kind of clamoring would reach fever pitch -- but what exactly would they be pushing for, if "immortality for everyone" just flat-out isn't possible for quite some time (say, decades) beyond the 2040 threshold?

BTW, if you don't think these dates are realistic, just pretend that they're 2090 and 2100 or something -- in other words, save the "it'll never happen" posts for another thread. I'm more curious about the societal consequences here, regardless of when it actually happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Joe Haldeman envisions such a scenario (tangentially; it's not the central plot) in his novel Old Twentieth. Basically, the wealthy immortals end up wiping out the poor mortals in self defense.

Re: society\'s reaction to \"living forever\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I think the "gov't owes me health care" mentality is silly, but it's pretty ingrained in society at the moment so I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's silly is the "I think people think the gov't owes them health care" mentality. That's not the argument people make, not even close. It's, "society would be better if the government provided health insurance".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. That's why all of their rhetoric talks about the "right" to universal healthcare and/or health insurance.

Re: society\'s reaction to \"living forever\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think this would make a really good premise for a science fiction novel. In fact, I'd be less than surprised if there weren't one already with this theme.

[/ QUOTE ]

see "To Live Forever" by Jack Vance (1956).

In this novel, everyone who 'participates' is eligible for some amount of life extension. Particpants try to demonstrate achievement in their field in order to gain 'slope' to attain hight levels of life extension (and eventual immortality - granted only to a few - the rest are killed by agents of the Actuarian when their alloted span is up). The protagonist (I won't say 'hero'), once an immortal, was sentenced to death for killing a fellow immortal (even though immortals have clones which can be awakened and implanted with almost-current memories). He fakes his death and obscures his identity until he is ready to begin his ascent to immortality again, but he is soon forced to kill another immortal who recognizes his old identity. Complications ensue.

Re: society\'s reaction to \"living forever\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I think the "gov't owes me health care" mentality is silly, but it's pretty ingrained in society at the moment so I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's silly is the "I think people think the gov't owes them health care" mentality. That's not the argument people make, not even close. It's, "society would be better if the government provided health insurance".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. That's why all of their rhetoric talks about the "right" to universal healthcare and/or health insurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll grant you that the word "right" is thrown around a lot, but that's not the same thing as "gov't owes me healthcare", which is a gross misconstruction.

Edited to add: I'm not going to say much more because the details of public insurance have been beaten to death elsewhere, I'm sure. The important thing is that you can't predict what people might do if you have the wrong idea about what actually motivates them.

Re: society\'s reaction to \"living forever\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I think the "gov't owes me health care" mentality is silly, but it's pretty ingrained in society at the moment so I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's silly is the "I think people think the gov't owes them health care" mentality. That's not the argument people make, not even close. It's, "society would be better if the government provided health insurance".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. That's why all of their rhetoric talks about the "right" to universal healthcare and/or health insurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll grant you that the word "right" is thrown around a lot, but that's not the same thing as "gov't owes me healthcare", which is a gross misconstruction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Go with that.