@Skidie
"Uploaded beings no longer take physical space..."
I'm not yet convinced that uploaded beings are something we can achieve. However, such beings would still require energy. Until we know how much energy an uploaded being is going to require, we cannot simply write it off and say "I'm sure there will be enough for everyone." We've held that attitude for a while, and it's not been doing us much good. Further, what affect will widespread use of this technology have on the planet? What will it mean for the non-human residents?
"Lastly, I have an answer about the prioritising and subsidising this tech and for who, however I am also a meritocrat, not egalitarist in my social views, so I don`t know if I should even give it, as whatever it will be, it won`t be an answer you could probably accept."
My objection is not so much who is worthy, so much as who has access to the technology. The technology is going to be expensive at first, and certain people are going to have the opportunity to access that technology before others. Looking at history, humanity has demonstrated not the best judgement when peoples with advanced technology deal with peoples without access to that technology. I lack the faith in humanity that the Haves will not exploit the Have Nots, or that they will not work to preserve their exclusive access at the expense of others.
@TheReasonator
"As to overpopulation, if you can save a life that is already alive you should. Someone who isn't born yet has no rights. If we extended lifespans so that it increased the population growth rate the solution would be to stop people from having so many babies, by government regulation if necessary."
Those who aren't born have no rights, you say. But you follow that up by suggesting we supress the rights of people who have been born to make their own reproductive choices. It tingles my ethics senses when someone's vision of the future starts to sound like a work of dystopian sci-fi.
"There's also the matter of how this could be controlled. ... Trying to ban human enhancement will just send it into the black market where quality and safety regulation becomes impossible."
Yes, this is indeed a problem we likely will have to deal with in the future. I didn't say I had solutions, only problems and questions.
"But the solution isn't to provide equality by holding everyone back, the solution is to provide equality by propelling everyone forward. When we have the technology we should subsidize enhancement for people who don't have the financial resources to afford it. ... At the very least anything that greatly extends the human lifespan should be available to everyone regardless of ability to pay."
See my above comments to Skidie. As for subsudizing those who can't afford the technology, we already fight over whether we should provide food to people that can't afford it. I just don't see humanity getting to the point where enough people support widespread technological welfare when we can't even agree that poor people shouldn't be left to starve.
"As far as whether we deserve... porn and cat pictures?"
That would be my not-so-serious response to new technologies, but look at history. Any new technology is going to be diverted from its original purpose to the most amusing use by the masses.
