We're talking about very different time scales. Of course more mortally-urgent matters should be prioritized. But it's like the debate over people trying to set

We're talking about very different time scales. Of course more mortally-urgent matters should be prioritized. But it's like the debate over people trying to set up backup planets when there's still so much that can be done to clean up Earth. I think all of those remedies need to be pursued simultaneously, rather than this simplistic "how could you possibly imagine colonizing another planet when we still have all of these issues???" argument. Colonization supporters are thinking about where (or if) we're going to be in centuries. It's not a fair comparison. >We could stop world hunger and cure most diseases in developing countries right now if we didn't spend our money on useless things, but we don't. You're far too optimistic. In theory there's enough money to solve almost every problem (homelessness, hunger, carbon emissions), but it's about the effective and efficient use of resources. That's why they haven't been solved. There's probably also a bit of a Mythical Man Month effect (more money/people/effort thrown into the same thing may have highly diminishing returns, in addition to all the higher potential for theft and corruption). It's difficult to imagine universal anti-aging and near-biological immortality without universal healthcare, elimination of poverty and hunger, and no requirement for people to work much (the last one could turn out false, though working at 165 doesn't sound so awful if you have the mind and body of a 30-year-old and if you can still live comfortably if you aren't working). You need a basic good level of health if you want to prevent deterioration and death; it would be a total lie to proclaim you've cured death when there are people who are starving. I would agree those are basic prerequisites for a non-aging civilization. I think it's all part of the same thing - each part is being worked on by the people with the most expertise to combat the respective problems, and they all have a common goal of improving the quality and quantity of life for all of humanity, now and indefinitely into the future. And hopefully it'll eventually apply to all conscious life we become aware of or create. Yes, in terms of what would have the biggest impact in the next decade, universal healthcare for Americans would rank far higher than tripling the longevity budget. But it's a tricky calculation when you're dealing with very long time scales. If one were to hypothetically cut all longevity funding in order to implement universal healthcare, then over the next 100 years it would be a more than worthwhile investment, but over the next few thousand? Maybe not. We should be fighting for all of those things. The question is to try to analyze as objectively as possible how to best allocate resources to achieve the most good for the most people over all time scales.