> I'd rather have the healthy and energy of a 25 year old and live in a world where there are people far richer than me than be a frail 80 year old where at least I know there aren't any trillionaires.
That's a very specific scenario, where everything happens to be going great for you. Do you honestly believe wealth inequality has no negative consequences for those at the bottom?
No, I agree that extreme wealth inequality is not desirable. But the question I'm trying to get at is if we can have medicine that will make people live dramatically healthier lives isn't it worth it even if some billionaires get to hold onto their wealth a little longer?
"But if we cure aging won't that mean that the ultra-rich will never go away??" That's what these conversations always seem to devolve into and it seems to miss the bigger picture.