posted
Let us suppose that we find a series of treatments that extend human life and vigor, rejuvenation. Vigor and health. Let us assume that it will be expensive, something that will not be available initially inexcept in Europe and the United States.
Call the extension up to 300 yrs. Now what do you do about prison sentences? Deny them treatment? Triple them? What is the loss of 20 yrs to a man who is going to live 300 baring accident?
This is a topic inspired by the Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars series where some of the larger social implications are explored. I am curious about this small side effect. Especially if denial of the treatment means a third of a life.
posted
Since I doubt that such a treatment will ever exist outside of SF books, I'm not overly concerned about it. In some cases and for some people, life extension would be a punishment in and of itself.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the only fair thing would be to give them treatment and not extend their sentences, i mean extending them would be like trying them for the same crime twice, only you know their guilty the second time.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider such a course of treatment to be one of the no-brainer predictions of Sci-fi, strange that you think it unlikely. There is no area where private wealth will be more focused, and so much of aging is genetic programing that once we understand it, it seems likely we will alter it. Add cosmetics surgery and hormone supplementation and you get youth and vigor for as long as you like. Of course I am not saying that the brain can remember a life of several centuries but anyway...
Still even if we just learn to clone our parts and cure senility you have 90% of what you need so where is the improbability?
Of course that is not the initial question...
I feel that the State would be under strong pressure to deny any treatment that was not available to everyone else. If it cost say 500,000 for the total package and took an average citizen his first 50 yrs of work to save enough, well it would make it profitable to rob and rape to get a jail term and the treatment!
Anybody else a Kim Stanley Robinson fan? He is a Liberal even!
posted
Eh, comrade Robinson isn't that great. I don't like his characters, though he's moderately strong on science.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I feel that the State would be under strong pressure to deny any treatment that was not available to everyone else. If it cost say 500,000 for the total package and took an average citizen his first 50 yrs of work to save enough, well it would make it profitable to rob and rape to get a jail term and the treatment!
I agree. It would be unethical to offer such treatment free to prisoners.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He is a bit of a socialist. Though not so much in the traditional model. His solution to this problem was essentially forcible colonization to not so nice places. Kind of a Botony Bay solution.
posted
The one thing that OSC wrote about that KSR also took a crack at was the overpopulation issue. What Robinson did was treat the issue of infrastucture much more practically. After the defeat of the Buggers the IF just said okay... Breed at will. Yet the numbers look like a million people a week would never put a dent in world population. So we will not be exporting our population problem. Life extension just adds another dimension.
posted
If it was an elective medical proceedure that insurance didn't cover, then no, of course people shouldn't be given it for free while in prison. The interesting question for me would be how would it affect sentencing gudielines for people convicted after having it.
Obviously, a life sentence without parole would still be a life sentence with out parole. But for other sentences, would we go to percentage of life expectancy? Instead of sentencing to 5 - 10 years, we could sentence to 20% of your remaining projected life span. A 30 year old without the treatment who could expect to live to be 80 would get 10 years. A 30 year old who had been treated and could expect to live to 300 would get 54 years.
Now that I've typed that out, I don't think it's fair. The same crime should get the same time, it's the punishment of being in there, since no one knows when they might die an accidental death it can't be a percentage of your life. But then we get to the problem of crimes so horrendous they call for life in prison.
posted
Perhaps some sort of socially statified work release, loss of privacy with GPS tracking devices and certain limits in what jobs a person can hold. If we shore up our borders we are going to need a labor force to pick the crops!
Imagine how hated the Immortal Americans would be in a world where only 10% could afford to get the treatment!
posted
Hmmm... an immortality treatment would be cool if used in conjunction with a constitutional monarchy. The king would last longer than any of the subjects...
I might have to use that at some point. Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Imagine how hated the Immortal Americans would be in a world where only 10% could afford to get the treatment!
A couple of books which deal with just this kind of inequity/pressure are the Beggars series, by Nancy Kress, and The Octagonal Raven by L.E. Modesitt Jr. (I'm actually not yet done with The Octagonal Raven but I have already seen this theme cropping up.) I strongly recommend the Kress books. I think she has dealt with similar topics in other books as well.
I agree with everything everybody has said so far, except digging_holes. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
