From h+ Magazine: "As serious life extension appears on an ever nearer horizon simultaneous with a period of social and economic rebellion and an increasing sense of global chaos, this may be a good time to entertain these anxieties while thinking beyond the two extant competing simplistic arguments. The current conflicting views seem to be these: A: Hyperlongevity will be for rich people only and we can't afford to add to the population vs. B: Technologies get distributed to more and more people at an increasing rate of speed through the auspices of the free market. Demand increases. Production increases. The price gets lower. Demand increases. Production increases. The price gets lower... ad infinitum. In fact, the wealthy who are the early adopters of a new technology get to spend a lot of money on crappy versions of new technologies that are not ready for prime time. At the risk of being obvious, it seems like there's a lot of room in the middle for more nuanced, less certain views. ... Very few people would say that we shouldn't cure cancer or heart disease because only the wealthy will be able to afford it - and those who did would be seen by most as anti-human and/or insufferably whiny. Seen in this light, it becomes obvious that this whole 'only the rich will get hyperlongevity' mentality is pathetic in the extreme - a concession of defeat before the outset. If you think optimal health and longevity should be distributed, you won't say, 'Well, it won't be distributed so I'm against it.' You will try to make sure it gets distributed. Whether you believe in medical care for all through government or pushing these solutions towards a very large mass market or creating an open source culture that takes production and distribution into its own decentralized hands, you'll work or fight for one or several (or all) of these solutions."