Ok - I'll take the bait. Let's apply that test. The old do not die (of old age) instead they live on, and what happens? Does the world reach a new nirvana? Do

Ok - I'll take the bait. Let's apply that test. The old do not die (of old age) instead they live on, and what happens? Does the world reach a new nirvana? Does peace reign? Or do things go on as they are now? If we're such a hot bunch where are the solutions for the wars that are currently pumping the news cycle? Lay them on the page and I will listen and believe me, I will change my mind. That's just what we have on our plate now, think on to the future. When society faces new challenges where will the new thought (and thinkers) come from to meet them? But forget the questions and the species preserving game theory. The moral issue is that getting rid of ageing and installing a gerontocracy is selfish and penalizes all subsequent generations, actual and imagined, either through snuffing them out, or by subduing them and taking their chances from them. I can live with a cold and uncaring universe, that's just the way it is (if you take the view that we count for anything on the scale of the Universe and anthropomorphizing something that we have neither the perception or cognition to form a proper understanding of). But, human arrogance (for example, imagining that human agents might be able to change the aforementioned non anthropomorphic, non perceptable, non cognitively encompassed universe) and overweening selfishness (ie. all future children count for nothing) is something I think is a matter of choice and something that anyone wise enough to merit living forever will be able to opt out of. And here is the answer to the conundrum of let's kill the old. If we as a species have the intrinsic merit to live forever we will opt out of doing so to make way for our children. If we don't merit this then there will be no death camps and euthanasia programs, just nuclear war, famine, environmental collapse and all the rest of it.