I suspect the opposite given history. Humans are very reactive to incentives - more deaths leads to more reproduction so that when threats are gone they stop trying to "out-compete" it. The deadliest wars in history failed to make a dent but peaceful first world nations are leveling off to replacement rate or worse or only achieving it through immigration. Furthermore living long encourages even the selfish to care more about sustainability since "whatever I'm not going to be around for it" wouldn't be a thing.

As for "only the rich" there are only two kinds of tech roll outs - cheaper alternatives to the existing or for the rich first. The previous while impactful tends to be less groundbreaking by definition because it isn't anything "novel". The latter is how it always has been.

We always here "but what about the consequences" but I have yet to hear a proper forecast. Which means it ammounts to stopping development for imaginary fears, pointless. The time to stop is if there are problems in testing /after it actually exists/.

It is one thing to say cancel carbon nanotube body armor or structural components due to being too carcinogenic - it is another to stop development for fear it will somehow create a new ice age, grey goo, or similar.