Agree appeal to nature can be misplaced, but this is not your run-of-the-mill such. We are talking about (or at least what I am talking about) changing the gene

Agree appeal to nature can be misplaced, but this is not your run-of-the-mill such. We are talking about (or at least what I am talking about) changing the genetic makeup of humans in order to allow a longer lifespan. It is actually one of the cases where appeal to nature is rational, and not a fallacy. It is not the same as saying men and women are "designed" by nature to mate with each other, therefore only men and women can have sex (nature has plenty of evidence that same-sex-sex btw, so appeal to nature in that case is a actually double fallacy). You final line is puzzling. How could I possibly "oppress those who disagree"? Because I assume you can't mean that I should simply shut up? As for saving lives, I'm all for saving people from dying before their time is up. But it is probably time to accept that we can't go on curing people forever. Just like a tree falls over and goes back to the ecosystem after a set number of years (give or take), we as humans are not constructed to live much longer than 100 years (give or take), and that is not a tragedy. It is life.