Why hubris? Many people want to chase after longer life, but only some have the means and time to do that effectively. And we've advanced to the point that the thought they might actually pull it off is not so far-fetched.
This actually raises a good question. I don't think anyone disagrees that if immortality is possible, humanity has s responsibility to figure it out. All truths are revealed eventually, etc.
You're right. Google is one of the few entities with the resources to throw at this problem. But what responsibilities does that place on them?
If google discovers a "cure for aging" (for a convoluted example), how do they select who gets to use it? Does google enjoy 100% autonomy in dictating how its used, since they discovered it? Or should the government step in and subsidize manufacturing so every citizen can access it? What about developing countries? Are we going to have 450 year old Americans and only a few 450 year old Ethiopians?
You point out to very important questions I don't know good answer for. I'd happily read more on the topic. There are certainly many dystopian scenarios that could play out (one hope would be if the progress was gradual enough that the curer will spread worldwide - say, there would be little incentive to withold the +250years drug from Ethiopians when the Americans already have +350years drug, etc.).
In my previous comment, however, I objected to the use of word "hubris". It sounds a bit like "how dare you play God, you mere mortal!" which isn't a very healthy attitude for actually solving the problems of humanity.
As with any technology, in the beginning, it is usually very expensive and only affordable to the rich. Eventually though technologies become cheaper and more and more people can afford it. It was the same with cell phones. I imagine this would be the same.
The patent system, as flawed as it is right now, was designed to encourage investment. The compensation for that investment is a limited time monopoly. Eventually though the technology becomes fair use and anybody can use it. That is one possible outcome.
But I think this technology will be very important to people and they will revolt if they don't get access to it--life and death scenarios tend to do that to people. The amount of social unrest and bad will generated by any company who withheld said technology would be so great that I think they would be forced to come up with a more philanthropic solution.
Also, based on what I know about the senescence research, it will not be one solution but likely thousands of discoveries that are discovered by a myriad of parties.
This is jumping into the realm of bioethics. Google or a billionaire would be ethically obligated to share any beneficial solution for immortality, but they're not technically obligated to do so.
One hope is that finding effective solution for aging and death will require so much time and manpower that partial solutions will end up being known and shared, even if heads of the program would want things to be secret for some reason. So I don't think we should fear Google turning into Ilaria.
