Log in

No account? Create an account
03 December 2004 @ 05:02 pm
optimism is entertaining  
'We will be able to live to 1,000'

i actually agree with him up to a point. especially the idea that we may lick the aging issue in about 20 - 40 years. but he is rather optimistic. what he doesnt mention at all is that it probably will not be available to everyone.. or rather parts of it will be, but why would everyone be entitled to this? it will first and foremost go to the top of the power chain. and it will be expensive. so why would 'everyone' be entitled to it?

i would say that the rich and powerful will get access first, then slowly over the years (VERY slowly.. like possibly never) things will trickle down.

so, make sure u get super rich or powerful...:>
toshihisa on December 4th, 2004 02:22 am (UTC)
So not only will 1% of the population get all the money, they'll get to live forever... I think the remaining 99% would drag them out into the street and lynch them first.
neuroticpitbullprojectpitbull on December 5th, 2004 09:12 pm (UTC)
i thought the cure for cancer is more important than to live for that long.
zzeotide on December 6th, 2004 01:11 am (UTC)
To live that long, cancer would need to be cured or made very preventable along with practically everything else.

Ideally then, only things like being hit by a bus would kill.

Of course to achieve this and sustain it, the birth rate would need to be throttled.

neuroticpitbullprojectpitbull on December 6th, 2004 11:00 pm (UTC)
to live so long others would have to die off quicker. and if we can cure cancer we can find the cure for a cold and the flu.

one reason i love and loathe technology and science fiction.

back to britney spears.
kugatsu74kugatsu74 on December 6th, 2004 11:30 am (UTC)
i wonder what decision i would make if posed with the choice. easy to say yes or know when its hypothetical in my mind.

what if you had the ability but none of your loved ones did ...seems rather lonly at best.