4 ms·
Let's say longevity was already a solved problem and people had unlimited lifespans. Would you advocate executing everyone once they reach 85 so that we can avo
by jbstack 2y ago
Let's say longevity was already a solved problem and people had unlimited lifespans. Would you advocate executing everyone once they reach 85 so that we can avoid the problems you refer to? If the answer is no, then the only consistent position is that longevity research shouldn't be blocked. In both scenarios, the solution is to work on those additional problems rather than deliberately kill people.
- sriram_malhar 2y agoWell, I don't want it to get to a point where it is already a solved problem. Length of life should not be the criterion; quality of life should be. If every one lives to be 200, then the quality of life will necessarily reduce for everyone; we are already straining the planet's resources, even if we don't make strides in keeping everyone fit and independent until they die.
- skeaker 2y agoThis hinges on the idea that death is preferable to a lowering of your current quality of life, which is very much not something that people are going to agree on.
- axus 2y agoThere might be some parallels with petroleum extraction. It would have seemed impossible to ban / regulate drilling even if the global warming in 100 years had been obvious. So many good things made and personal fortunes generated by oil extraction; preventing those benefits would've seemed immoral. Life extension is kind of like that, it's easy to say "someone will deal with potential problems later". A person only looking out for themselves and an altruist can both present an argument based on morality.