2 ms·

Your theoretical scenario is equally concerning. In a world where the status quo is "everyone dies after a certain age", then a drug that cures aging is a drast

Your theoretical scenario is equally concerning. In a world where the status quo is "everyone dies after a certain age", then a drug that cures aging is a drastic change to the equilibrium and we should proceed with caution so that this change doesn't disrupt the equilibrium enough to lead to eventual extinction of the population. In a world where the status quo is "nobody ages", then having everyone die after a certain age is also a drastic change to the already proven equilibrium. In both cases, it's a drastic change, so in both cases we should proceed with caution. (Related) I seem to recall an example of wolves and rabbits in equilibrium, with the wolves controlling the rabbit population. Take away the wolves and the rabbit population increases to the point where they eat all the vegetation and eventually all starve. (I'm not sure where I remember this from, or if it's even true)

feoren 4y ago
> we should proceed with caution We're talking about people dying. Would you "proceed with caution" pulling a person from a burning building, because of some vague reasons about status quos and upsetting balances? No, you'd save their life. There are times to proceed with caution, but it's not when billions of lives are at stake, equilibrium or not. Freeing the slaves was a drastic change to a "proven equilibrium" economic situation. If we could have done it even a year earlier than we did, we should have. It was unconscionable that it even took that long. And messing up the comfy status quo and throwing the economy out of balance were absolutely reasons that slave-owners gave as to why they should be allowed to own humans forever. It was all bullshit. Fuck your equilibrium; billions of people are dying!