3 ms·
It's absolutely nuts to me that anyone would focus on this (idealistically, I understand the economic incentive) before fixing quality of life first. What's th
by Griffinsauce 5y ago
It's absolutely nuts to me that anyone would focus on this (idealistically, I understand the economic incentive) before fixing quality of life first.
What's the point of living eternally if you can't enjoy it?
I can only conclude that the people advocating for this live an immensely privileged and sheltered life.. for now. Eternity is a lot of time for bad luck.
- admissionsguy 5y agoLiving eternally is something else entirely. Curing every disease and completely stopping aging gives average life expectancy of a few hundred years only. Beyond health, quality of life is up to choices made by every individual and every society. It's not like there are technological fixes to most systemic issues that cause so many people to lead miserable lives.
- dsign 5y ago>> before fixing the quality of life first... That sounds like whataboutism. Many people are happy with the way they live their lives, except for the aging bit. Many social problems that affect quality of life are caused by aging, including the need for child birth (emphasis in need because some enjoy raising children), the need to care for aging parents, horrible health problems (and their associated financial cost), and even poverty--just check wealth distribution across age cohorts. Speaking of which, what's the point of working hard and saving, if when retirement comes one is already an old wretch?