Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: