3 ms·

c) Institute a Logan's Run policy where you get 80 or 100 years of good health and are then painlessly euthanized. I think we can do better than c, but it's a

c) Institute a Logan's Run policy where you get 80 or 100 years of good health and are then painlessly euthanized. I think we can do better than c, but it's a lower bound: it avoids your concerns and is still a large improvement over the status quo. I'd like to live forever Curing aging doesn't let you live forever. There would still be diseases (at a much lower rate), accidents, murder, suicide, natural disasters, etc. All it would do is prevent the deterioration of our bodies and often our minds that generates large medical expenses, prevents us from being productive, and impairs our quality of life. It would also give us the option of living for several centuries longer than we do today, which we could take or not.

hugh3 16y ago
I think we can do better than c, but it's a lower bound: it avoids your concerns and is still a large improvement over the status quo. I'm rather unconvinced that's an improvement over the status quo... you've just granted the government the power to euthanize people. And you just know that they're going to find a way to abuse that. They'll start by giving extensions to really valuable people we don't want to lose; great scientists, artists, writers. And then it'll be "gee, I guess politicians are pretty awesome as well, perhaps politicians should get another hundred years too..." Pretty soon it's effective-immortality for political favours. No thanks, I'll take my chances with old age. The best solution is: (d) Build starships and expand into space. But I worry that curing aging might come first.
- orangecat 16y ago
  (d) Build starships and expand into space. We can agree on that at least. Our eggs definitely need more than one basket.