Comments on: Will the Super Rich Evolve Into a Separate Species?

By: The Doctor

The Doctor — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:49:27 +0000

@Kyle: Publically, I’m pretty sure his opinion would be the same in such a situation. Privately, he’d be singing the blues like the rest of us who’ve been screwed that way.

By: Troy Peterson

Troy Peterson — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:06:33 +0000

I’m disappointed in the direction of this discussion. This article seems to be about something more and something bigger than the problems of the current social, political and economic climate, even class. The article seems to be about a very promising future opportunities. The future is here, it’s just not evenly distributed yet.

The rate of increase of tech and science has been staggering and will continue. How will it affect us seven generations from now will largely be determined by the questions and values we embrace today.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:07:45 +0000

Gadfly, I’m sure your opinion will be the same when you lose your job and the COBRA premium for your family health insurance is $900/mo. (And if you’re not in the tax bracket that would care if either of these problems occurred, try to use your imagination.)

By: steve

steve — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:28:33 +0000

“. Most of the rich have gotten that way for a reason”

See, Financial Sector, 2001-2008.

Steve

By: bart

bart — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:09:07 +0000

@Heidi, actually I don’t care much about it unless it is about health and education. But talking about social systems, I’m more inclined to “In Praise of Idleness” by Bertrand Russell — normally you can work and buy what you want except some of your own time for the pursuit of intellectual activities, specially when young. One thing is certain, no system is perfect and if the system itself doesn’t evolve then we have a big problem.

By: Heidi

Heidi — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:10 +0000

@bart Just because the voting public thinks it should be one way, doesn’t mean that is the best way to handle, well, anything. Most of the rich have gotten that way for a reason, most of us schmucks stay poor for a reason. Deal with it.

By: bart

bart — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:05:18 +0000

@Heidi: Lets assume, for example, that a cure for cancer (or aids, etc.), is available, but only for the rich. Now lets assume that this makes such a media fuss that some clever politician takes the opportunity to make a simple democratic consultation: people, do you want to keep this only for the rich or do you want it also for yourselves (the money needed will be obtained by taxing the rich)? What do you think the answer will be?

By: Heidi

Heidi — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:47:13 +0000

Or maybe it’s survival of the fittest. The wealthy can afford better things and so should have them. Those who can’t, shouldn’t.

By: couldb

couldb — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:12:00 +0000

This is what the NWO and bilderber group is all about. Soon there will be a VERY expensive drug that will slow aging down allowing those who can afford it to live 50-100 years longer in good health. Within the 50-100 they will have a better drug to increase the longevity of a human another 100-200 and within that a better drug again. Until you have some who can live 1000 years or more. Problem is if everyone can get that drug the earth will not be able to handle all those humans. So some very powerful people are already planning for this event. Think Morlocks and Eloi on a much more sinister scale.

By: Matt T

Matt T — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:41:56 +0000

There isn’t a class of longer-living super rich humans now, despite major (and costly) breakthroughs in medical science that have already been implemented. I don’t see much cause for alarm, though a discussion on the topic might be fun.

@Gafly (#2): You know what’s great? When you accuse someone of putting a political slant on a story, and then expound on your own political beliefs in the same paragraph. You gotta love irony!