mr. furley
Footballguy
https://www.outsideonline.com/2325556/liz-parrish-live-forever
a Reddit AMA with Liz Parrish - CEO of BioViva - https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/3ocsbi/ama_my_name_is_liz_parrish_ceo_of_bioviva_the/
What about ordinary people: Would they be able to afford the treatment? “Gene therapy technology is much like computing technology,” she replied. “We had to build the super computer, which cost $8 million in the 1960s. Now everyone has technologies that work predictably and at a cost the average person can afford.”
As the AMA went on, the questions started to become more existential. “If/when this becomes reality for the general public,” someone asked, “how will this affect population rates?” And what about the physical limitations of the planet? What about the possibility that we could create two classes of people: an overclass that could afford to pay for these therapies and an underclass that dies right on schedule?
BioViva wasn’t “trying to determine who should live or die,” Parrish wrote. “Everyone has a right to life without suffering.” A user assailed her logic: “It’s not obviously true that life-extension technology will reduce the number of lives lived in suffering.… You are trying to create technologies which, if successful, are likely to change the distribution of deaths among the population, and the potential wider effects of that change deserve some consideration.”
She responded quickly. “As life span increases, fertility rates go down all over the world,” she wrote. “Humans will create better technology and space travel will increase.” She soon signed off. The good outcomes that had seemed obvious to her were apparently less obvious to the rest of the world.
@Maurile Tremblay
a Reddit AMA with Liz Parrish - CEO of BioViva - https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/3ocsbi/ama_my_name_is_liz_parrish_ceo_of_bioviva_the/
What about ordinary people: Would they be able to afford the treatment? “Gene therapy technology is much like computing technology,” she replied. “We had to build the super computer, which cost $8 million in the 1960s. Now everyone has technologies that work predictably and at a cost the average person can afford.”
As the AMA went on, the questions started to become more existential. “If/when this becomes reality for the general public,” someone asked, “how will this affect population rates?” And what about the physical limitations of the planet? What about the possibility that we could create two classes of people: an overclass that could afford to pay for these therapies and an underclass that dies right on schedule?
BioViva wasn’t “trying to determine who should live or die,” Parrish wrote. “Everyone has a right to life without suffering.” A user assailed her logic: “It’s not obviously true that life-extension technology will reduce the number of lives lived in suffering.… You are trying to create technologies which, if successful, are likely to change the distribution of deaths among the population, and the potential wider effects of that change deserve some consideration.”
She responded quickly. “As life span increases, fertility rates go down all over the world,” she wrote. “Humans will create better technology and space travel will increase.” She soon signed off. The good outcomes that had seemed obvious to her were apparently less obvious to the rest of the world.
@Maurile Tremblay
Last edited by a moderator:
.. Only with 
