- cross-posted to:
- comicstrips@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- comicstrips@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/9496590
You must log in or # to comment.
No one will be able to afford it. It won’t be for sale. Imagine the power of being the only source for functional immortality. It won’t be sold, it will be handed out in exchange for loyalty and service. “You’ll live for as long as I say you live. I’m not threatening you with death, life does that to all of us. I’m promising you life. I’m the good guy.”
Eventually, it will make its way out, but it won’t happen in our lifetimes.
You mean like renting it? Or a subscription?
There was a 2011 sci fi movie kinda about that. The movie wasn’t that good but it had some interesting ideas:
In 2169, people are genetically engineered to stop aging on their 25th birthday, when a one-year countdown on their forearm begins. When it reaches zero, the person “times out” and dies instantly. Time has thus become the universal fiat currency, transferred directly between people or stored on flashdrive type devices, some in secure bank vaults. Distinct socioeconomic caste “Time Zones” exist; Dayton is the poorest, a manufacturing hub and “ghetto” where people rarely have over 24 hours on their clocks, whereas in New Greenwich, the affluent Zone of plutocrats, people have enough time to be essentially immortal. … the people of New Greenwich hoard most of the time, while constantly increasing prices to impoverish people in less prosperous districts.
But it had Justin Timberlake!
He did an OK job. Mostly it was the script that let it down.
Sounds like Logan’s Run
Lyfe Common, and Lyfe Premium.
I honestly don’t think anyone is prepared to wield that set of keys to effectively enforce control on anyone.
They’re simply too valuable, sought after, and desired, imo.
I’d expect that the moment an individual despot or even a cabal thereof attempts to do so, they’ll go in a very shortlist designed with only one purpose in mind: Demonstration of the ways immortality absolutely sucks for you if guys with a bunch of wrenches are beating you up for the password.
Honestly, a smart and sane Oligarch should fear nothing with a greater degree of dread, than immortality.
Historically, what the oligarch does is take a percentage of the wealth and spread it out among just enough people to protect them from the rest.
Indeed. But that paradigm breaks when the percentage at stake, the password ultimately being wrenched for, is literally infinite wealth.
That’s what immortality functionally is. Some things by logical extension, and others admittedly chances to attempt them, but potentially infinite of 'em chances. At anything. The acquisition of any resource is not even a full chapter in the new book.
If you (generic you, here the kind of person who would be in the sphere of the kind of person to attempt to withhold and control immortality already) are even remotely close enough to pick up a wrench and take it to whoever is holding it, you don’t settle for a percentage, you go start the first of a long line of endless beatings on the first Immortal. It’s the only value proposition that makes sense, any degree of acquiescence against your interests, is agreeing to give them up and do so for potential eternity.
Imo, there’s only one way uh…well, it’s not ethical in our framework but I’m ready to argue how it is from the framework of a future immortal POV…I guess way to handle immortality.
You dose everyone with it. Full send it, most heinous final act of Humanity. Go straight to the deepest hell, the first Immortal cell belongs to you. But then everyone has to deal with fucking around and the finding out, forever, no exceptions or excuses.
Shit will get solved and we’ll be on our way to solar expansion so freaking fast.
Nah, humans already reached the maximum lifespan thanks to modern medical care. It’s basically doubled in the last century, and the last decades suuuuck. A century or so is all we will ever get. Billionaires are just as obsessed with immortality as ancient emperor’s, and it’s as unobtainable as it ever was. What are they gonna do, implant virgin’s organs when they’re 103? They’ll never survive the surgeries.
What works is damage repair. Repair the cells. Replenish stem cells (and a handful of other things). It already works in mice so it’s not technically impossible.
I understand why you feel this way, but 1) it’s underway in our lifetimes (quite possibly) and b) it’s going to be cheap.
The first age reversing drugs can already be bought for a couple of thousands of dollars (dasatinib + quercetin (D+Q), an experimental senolytic combination, not very good because it’s the first, better cheaper will come).
Even if the cost is high for starters, governments would subsidise it (maybe not in the usa lol) to have healthier people, medic care for old decripit people cost enormously.
I know people love to hate on this subject, but it’s fantastic research that will help alleviate enormous sufferings, or so I think.
The way people cope with their silly little mortality is by holding on tight to the inevitability. Take that away and they panic, so they can’t think clearly about it.
Thur: big oil ceo ousted, replaced with guy willing to focus on maximizing short term company performance
Yeah, its not the CEOs that ultimately make these decisions, theyre just the figurehead for the board. The board being the spokespeople for the shareholders.
Though, even if you replace the image on the right with one depicting a board of directors or a shareholder meeting, it wouldnt be accurate. Theyll do whats in their best interest and no further. Even if it fucks the rest of the world over.
Exactly, even if every member of the board recognized their individual interest to pivot the company’s focus to green energy, they would still be replaced over time by those willing to sacrifice everything for short to mid term gains, since that’s what the shareholders are incentivized to demand
The idea that “public companies only exist to maximize value for the shareholders” is toxic af, and only introduced because some famous economist made it popular [source needed, I have some vague recollection but I’m talking out of my ass]. Once it became the de facto law of capitalism, “investors” stopped allowing decisions that didn’t benefit their bottom line, and could sue to ensure decisions that they disagree with (especially if they cost more than they earn)
If we took away the “legal obligation to the shareholders”, which is an ultra-simplistic optimization that often results in “greedy algorithm” decision making for next quarters earnings, and made the obligation to 50% employees and 50% shareholders, along with better ongoing taxation of negative externalities, being on the board would be a real job instead of a few hours a week position in some cases. You’d have to negotiate big picture things, handle employee concerns seriously, while still being pushed to generate revenue by the shareholders.
Capitalism would probably still work, mostly. I think if leadership weren’t driven by “shareholder value”, adding plans to mitigate externalities that aren’t required by law would be easier. Currently, I don’t think any company builds a coal power plant with smoke or co2 capture that isn’t required to by law.
Stock markets would still be able to pick and choose investments, but if a company chose a 10 year plan that loses money the first year, they couldn’t be sued for replacement so long as the employees and one board member agreed on it.
Idk. It’s a poorly thought out fantasy of mine to fix how corporations work. I’m sure I’m missing something other than big piles of money that would never let it happen. There are a lot of other systemic legal and structural problems we’d need to fix, but reallocating boards to be 50% voting employee representatives would be a starting point.
The probpem isnt that someone suggested it and every shareholder was like “duh, why didnt we think of that?” Its that its the inevitable conclusion of a system where profit is the main (and generally only) determination of success. Individuals within said corporations or shareholders can have other ideals, but ultimately they will be less successful and have less of a say in how things are run.
Capitalism is a winner take all system based on economic prisperity, so those who maximise profit over all else will end up taking it all. You would have to fundamentally change our economic systems to make any kind of significant difference.
