3 ms·
Over a long enough lifespan the chance of contracting cancer approaches one. So we'd have to fix that too, for starters.
by ErrantX 16y ago
Over a long enough lifespan the chance of contracting cancer approaches one. So we'd have to fix that too, for starters.
- orangecat 16y agoNah. Sure, even if you don't suffer from aging you'd still occasionally get diseases, and eventually one would be fatal, but your medical expenses per year would be far less than they are today.
- ErrantX 16y agoOk then, how about this. Obesity is a growing cause of illness. Removing aging is unlikely to affect that, arguably it could compound the problem.
- orangecat 16y agoPotentially, although I'd expect that a person with the health of an obese 30 year old would still have lower medical expenses than a non-obese 60 year old. At any rate, obesity is a relatively easy problem compared to aging. (Step 1: stop subsidizing corn syrup...)
- ErrantX 16y agoNo it doesn't work like that; it's not the age, it is beig obese for a length of time. I'm not sure it is as easily fixable as your comment suggests - I'd argue it is as non-trivial as stopping aging.
- jeffcoat 16y agoCareful, here: this is exactly what the argument would look like if you'd decided in advance what the right answer is, and you kept casting around for reasons why that's so until you find one that seems to stick.
- ErrantX 16y agoNot at all I'm offering reasons - all pretty solid ones - why fixing aging wouldn't remove the cost of healthcare. The point was to show there are lots of other healthcare costs unrelated to aging. I'd argue it is the other poster who has become set on a theory. :-)