Anti-aging technology is a bit of a game changer; it would effectively create automatic oligarchies, because the rich and powerful would never die and pass on their power.
There is effectively no reward for the rich to make this technology broadly available. There's every incentive to keep their workforces and consumers ignorant and short-lived.
The rich and powerful create oligarchies now. Even if the problem would be worse with anti-aging I'd trade not-dying for more powerful oligarchs.
I think it might make things more egalitarian. A hard working genius born to poverty only has 80 years to work their way into the upper echelons. Removing senescence means such people will have more time to rise to elite positions and demonstrate track records of competence and merit.
I don't agree that anti-aging would be restricted to the richest. One simple reason is that anyone with the know-how could make vast wealth by making anti-aging available to the masses.
ALittleLight seems to be saying we should give poor people more time to develop their talents. Taking away healthcare from them would provide them will less time to develop their talents.
Who said you'll have access to the life-prolonging tech? Parent's comment is exactly that once having this technology, the rich will only share it for such a high price that only other rich people would afford.
We heard that with the Internet too. And 25 years later: while certain metrics like poverty and standard of living have improved globally, things have gotten worse in Western countries. Why do you think something as Holy Grail-esque as anti-aging tech will be any different?
There is effectively no reward for the rich to make this technology broadly available. There's every incentive to keep their workforces and consumers ignorant and short-lived.