Hacker News Reader

Comment by enraged_camel | Hacker News Reader

Okay, let's attach numbers to the scenario. Assume there are 1 million people in Group A and 990 million people in Group B.

By voting no, you just condemned 900,000 people in Group A to eventually die, simply because you wanted to prevent them from becoming the ruling elite.

Stated differently, you had the power to prevent 900,000 deaths (and in fact many more than that, moving forward), and you chose not to because of ideology.

Surely it is better for people to not die - to not cease to exist - even if that means they rise to the top of the social hierarchy?

View on HN

There have been several times in human history where the majority have decided it would be best if the 'elite' should have their lifespans shortened. Arguably with positive results.

I can't think of any times when people have had their lifespans shortened for fear they would become the elite, and the shorteners were on the right side of history. That sounds more like The Crucible.

The point is they are not potential elite, they are already elite. The fact that they can get hold of the treatment when the majority can not shows they're already placed at the top of society.

Personally I agree with the logic that if we have the choice between 0 and 100,000 people living for ever we pick 100,000 (Even if that 100,000 include such greats as Un and Assad). Having said that If I had the choice between 100,000 living forever and 3 billion people living forever with less private jets in the world I'd pick the later. Perhaps I'm cynical but if we do indeed get this tech I'm a lot less confident about my values being satisfied in the second instance than the first.

French Revolution versus Red October, Mao's Cultural Revolution, gulags and concentration camps for every communist country. In 90% of these "elite trimmings" society is pushed back decades at least. Unruly mobs do not move the world forward.

They may not move their country forward, that doesn't mean they don't move the world forward. Say what you will about the French revolution's effect on France but it greatly influenced the spread of democracies and republics world wise. Similarly the presence of socialism(in the production owned by the people sense) hugely encouraged improvements in working conditions in countries that feared similar upheaval and loss of property.

But I wouldn't argue with you that the majority of these 'elite trimmings' set the society back. The question is after the set back does it move forward faster than it was or in a better direction (Often the answer to this would be hugely reliant on your personal values).

Surely it is better for people to not die - to not cease to exist - even if that means they rise to the top of the social hierarchy?

Not unless they're going to be benevolent rulers, no.

I will not grant people immortal life so that they can make everyone else's lives into a living hell.

By that logic, we should never have eradicated smallpox. Medicine extends lifespan - and a rising tide lifts all boats.

By that logic, we should never have eradicated smallpox.

We eradicated smallpox for everyone, without distinction between rulers and ruled. That's the difference!

a rising tide lifts all boats.

"A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire

>>We eradicated smallpox for everyone, without distinction between rulers and ruled. That's the difference!

You may want to familiarize yourself with the history of smallpox eradication before continuing this debate. The vaccination was available mostly in wealthy countries first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication

"...coordinated efforts against smallpox went on, and the disease continued to diminish in the wealthy countries. By 1897, smallpox had largely been eliminated from the United States.[66] In Northern Europe a number of countries had eliminated smallpox by 1900, and by 1914, the incidence in most industrialized countries had decreased to comparatively low levels..."

>We eradicated smallpox for everyone, without distinction between rulers and ruled.

Notwithstanding the daughter comment that disproves this, try substituting 'smallpox' for 'cancer'. Cancer treatment is by no means available to everyone, or even the majority, yet it extends lifespans (of good people and dictators alike). Should we not have developed treatments for cancer?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com