416
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
416 points (95.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43781 readers
942 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It's common sense that if aging were solved tomorrow, it would be patented and the wealthiest 3% would enjoy much longer lives, while the working class wouldn't see much change.
Incidentally, longer life would allow even more accumulation of money and power, making inequality worse.
Plus side: billionaires now consider climate change threat #1 and use many more resources to solve it compared to today, rather than only care about the next 40-50 years.
On the down side, they'd probably solve the climate crisis by spreading vaporised peons in the upper atmosphere to block some of the solar radiation.