However, it seems likely that governments will fail to subsidize life-extension for some have-nots. Is this a reason for society to decline to subsidize, and otherwise inhibit, life-extension research--'if we can't all have it, no one should have it'? This response is a kind of "collective suttee": just as widows could not outlive their husbands in traditional India, so potential Methuselahs would not outlive the have-nots.
Collective suttee is an unjustified response to a likely social failure
to subsidize all have-nots. It might be justified against the stingy
haves (who oppose subsidies) but it unjustly penalizes the generous
haves (who are willing to subsidize). Anticipated social failure to
subsidize means we must choose between a) promoting life-extension
research that benefits both the generous (and deserving) haves and the
stingy (and nondeserving) haves, and b) inhibiting research in order to
deny life-extension to both groups. Given a choice between benefiting
the undeserving in order to give the deserving their due, and denying
the deserving in order to avoid benefiting the undeserving, is it more
just to do the former. Therefore, anticipated failure to subsidize
life-extension for have-nots does not justify inhibiting life-extension
research.
Key words:
access, distribution, immortality, justice, life-extension
Problems or questions regarding this site should be directed to
the organiser