If immortality for humans (10x the current lifespan, or more) was POSSIBLE, would you want it accessible to EVERYONE?

Biology Science Longevity Polls Life Extension Biotech Aging

Never closes

Strong Yes

Weak Yes

Weak No

Strong No

Results (you'll be ineligible to vote if you see results)

Immortality for humans here means dramatic improvements in lifespan to the extent of 10x or longer lives (measured in quality years) compared to today's standards.

"If immortality for humans (10x the current lifespan, or more) was POSSIBLE, would you want it accessible to EVERYONE?"

It could be a procedure, an operation, a drug, a set of procedures, whatever, all of them clubbed into a large enough set of procedures that enable such a lifespan of quality years.

It doesn't just have to be available to everyone but also accessible for the purposes of this question.

This is a follow-up to the following poll:

Get Ṁ1,000 play money

Related questions

Will Humans invent immortality by 2100

34% chance

Immortality or Death by AGI?

Will we find a way to live forever, i.e. reverse aging and achieve biological immortality by 2046?

30% chance

Will humans make breakthroughs, that would at minimum double the lifespan of a willing 30yo with high resources?

13% chance

Is immortality for humans (10x the current lifespan, or more) a goal we should pursue in the first place?

POLL

Will a scientific discovery extend human lifespan by more than 10 years within the next 20 years?

33% chance

Will science make human beings biologically immortal in future?

88% chance

will immortality technology be developed before 2077

41% chance

If ASI is achieved and doesn't wipe out humanity, will natural death be cured within 5 years?

53% chance

Will mouse immortality be achieved before human immortality?

75% chance

17 Comments

Sort by:

This one needs there to be unlimited access to space, post scarcity and Interstellar ambitions. In which case strong yes. Else strong no. Too many people for limited stuff

@VAPOR That's a problem we can solve, and not one we should kill people to solve.

@josh as in deprive them of a suite of life extension technologies at a trivial cost? Cancer, Alzheimer's, telomere shortening etc kill, but so does competition for resources. I will kill you with a hammer to take your lunch if I can't eat.

What do you mean by "accessible", that if somebody wants it but can't afford it then it should be paid with taxpayers' money? If so, it depends on how much it costs (definitely yes if $100, definitely no if $10M)

@ArmandodiMatteo if someone wants but can't get, that's available but not accessible. If it's accessible, that means the average person can get it if they want

@firstuserhere "the average person" or "everyone"? If someone in rural Somalia wants it and can't pay for it out of pocket and neither can the Somalian government, who should pay exactly?

@ArmandodiMatteo average person

@firstuserhere (also, I noticed the question says "would you want it" not "should it be made" — I guess the former means I'm allowed to disregard cost issues and just think about whether it would be desirable at all, right?)

@ArmandodiMatteo That's right

is yes implying that immortality should be delayed for anyone until everyone on earth can get it? Or is it implying that I have a magic wand and don't want to randomly exclude people ?

@SemioticRivalry Say the magic cure is invented some day. Would you want to distribute it to everyone? Everyone? Or would you have a filter for who is eligible?

@firstuserhere like "hey we've invented antibiotics but we've decided to not give them to people who are left handed" ?

@firstuserhere any artificial filter for healthcare is essentially a violation of the declaration of Geneva.

"I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;"

https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-geneva/

@RemNiFHfMN just make it expensive and that serves as a good enough filter.

@firstuserhere yes, but strongly in demand healthcare solutions tend to go down in cost over time, unless there is some form of market manipulation or corruption taking place

@firstuserhere in that situation all it would take would be for at least one other country to not artificially restrict this hypothetical therapy and you'd get a mass exodus of people

@RemNiFHfMN Good point