> There should be a national moon-landing-level initiative to make these machines available to everyone You are doing a logical jump here. You argue, quite con

> There should be a national moon-landing-level initiative to make these machines available to everyone You are doing a logical jump here. You argue, quite convincingly that “solving death” is a problem worth pursuing, and we should prioritise it higher than we are already do. We are on the same page about that. Then you posit that we should pour huge amount of money into development of ECMO. But you don’t say why? Why do you think pouring all those resources in particular to ECMO research is the best way towards “solving death”? ECMO even in the best possible dream circumstances will always remain a shitty, painfull and risky procedure which can only help a few. On the other hand senescence will affect every one of us who is lucky enough to live long enough. For some reason, most likely for a bunch of reasons, our bodies start to fall apart as we age. Understanding how exactly that happens and what can be done about it should be a higher priority. The national moon-landing-level initiative monies you plan to pour into ECMO research and development should be spent on senescence research and anti-senescence development. Which future do you want to live in? One where masses are kept kinda-sorta alive by machines, always on the knife edge of dying from a bleed, or a blood clot, or an infection? Or one where 150 year olds go rock climbing and windsurfing because through medical and technological advancements we figured out how to keep their bodies younger longer?