> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> > I think that the conclusion overlooks the likelihood of altruism
> > among the potential immortals. If even one of the immortals has
> > even the slightest amount of altruism, then the technology will
> > be be disseminated to the populace as a whole. The argument against
> > this assumes a zero-sum game in which a gain by the unwashed masses
> > equates to a loss by an immortal. Information doesn't work this
> > way.
> It may very well be possible that the average person will not be able to
> handle the enhancements necessary to become 'immortal'.
I was thinking in terms of a scenario in which augmentation leads to massively increased intelligence that leads to innovation that results in immortality. The same increased intelligence would find ways to adapt the enhancements so that the average person could handle them. This is a variant of the "singularity" argument.
If we get immortality without superintelligence, then power could indeed concentrate in the immortals based on simple longevity, but the time frame for that accrual would be one or two centuries. I just don't see how superintelligence can be suppressed for that long.