To me, it seems obvious that even if limited lifespans are good, aging is still bad, and the best route would be to cure aging and then euthanize older people B

To me, it seems obvious that even if limited lifespans are good, aging is still bad, and the best route would be to cure aging and then euthanize older people Brave New World-style. I mean, which option sounds better: thirty years of life during which you get sicker and sicker, followed by a slow, painful death; or thirty years of healthy, active life, followed by an instant and painless death? I know which one I'd choose.