Ok, so here is my idle thought for the day.
Restrict the power of people at the average age of death in their country. Be a jerk about it, no political positions, no company directorships, trust boards or any other position of power can be held once you pass that age.
In NZ that is 83 for women and 79 for men.
That is old; really old, to be making decisions about the future.
If billionaires want to retain power beyond that, better fund those works that make things better for everybody to bring up that average. Men, you will need to up your game as women out live you by 4 years or 5%…
Perverse incentives, maybe keeping people alive using machines etc, longer than in medically advisable…but that doesn’t work on the scale of millions of people.
Edit: for clarity, I am not calling for disenfranchising the old, they would still have the right to vote.
Hmm, an interesting thought experiment. But my concern is about quality of life, not necessarily lifespan. For example, pharmaceutical companies could ensure that people live longer, on average, by making suitable treatments that are expensive and keep people in lower classes from achieving social mobility, while still technically increasing the average lifespan. Especially if this is done in conjunction with, say, the top 10% figuring out how to effectively double their lifespans.
Lets use those numbers.
Assume (generously) that the average lifespan is 90; some breakthrough allows the top 10% to reach 180.
That brings the average up to 99; thus forcing the super rich to cede power for just under 1/2 their lives.
Hard to sell to the 90% that keeping this magical life extension exclusive. The power of averages to ensure that the outliers have a smaller impact.
Edit: to go further, lets assume that the top 1% can go to 5x so 450 years. Ignoring the fact that this couldn’t possibly be known during their lifetimes. That still only brings the average up by a little to 99.9 years. The weight of that 90% is the kicker.
But you’re ignoring the part that they will extend the 90% lives, just not as much and at a much lower quality of life. You just focused on my last sentence.
How though?
What could both extend your life and make its quality lower. The 90% still outweigh the 10%; they are going to quickly see a major advantage to having the advances be more widespread.
In saying the above, people constantly vote against their best interests as it is.