Background: I was arguing with someone about whether pursuing extreme longevity was ethical or moral considering the gross inequality in the world.
The guy argued that whoever invented this would sell it for a "paltry sum" like $1000. I pointed out that such an amount was not paltry for many, many people.
Now, I hate calling in for backup, so don't go to the thread, but this is the response:
Not at all. In any first world nation, $1,000 for a treatment that stops the aging process is TRIVIAL. Even poor people routinely spend more than that on nonsense like macbooks and fancy rims for their cars. It's obviously more of an issue in the third world, but again, we're projecting this out far in the future. Add to that the fact that only a complete nitwit believes that everyone has to have unilaterally identical access to absolutely everything in order for it to be moral, and it's easy to see why you're so completely off the rails. 9 minutes ago
Am i the crazy one here?