2 ms·

Society has a right to ban radical life extension if we judge that the social costs outweigh the benefits. Whether that is the case is what is up for debate.

oldmanjay 11y ago
Society has the right to try, but banning things has this way of not actually working, so it's probably best to plan for the reality that if it can happen, it will.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > Society has the right to try It really, really doesn't. Note the first item "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", or the equivalents in other fundamental statements of rights.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
I really, really hope you're being a devil's advocate and you don't actually advocate mass murder of the elderly to make room for the young. If your society attempted to commit mass murder, your society would be removed by force and replaced by one that did not. And if that sounds like hyperbole, so does the concept that all societies would intentionally withhold a cure to the single most deadly affliction humanity suffers from: aging.
- qsymmachus 11y ago
  There is a big difference between arguing that radical life extension could have serious social and environmental costs, and arguing that we should execute the elderly. Death is not an unmitigated evil, nor is eternal youth an unmitigated good. I don't think that's a radical argument.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > There is a big difference between arguing that radical life extension could have serious social and environmental costs, and arguing that we should execute the elderly. I agree. Discussing ways to solve those problems would be an aspect of the former, which is completely reasonable. However, at the point where you suggested that society could ban life extension, you started arguing for the latter. Follow your argument to its logical conclusion. What are you proposing, and what would the effect be? You suggested intentionally withholding a cure for a degenerative disease (namely, aging). How else could that possibly be interpreted? > Death is not an unmitigated evil, nor is eternal youth an unmitigated good. I don't think that's a radical argument. It's safe to say that's our fundamental point of disagreement. Personally, I plan to address that disagreement by continuing to donate to fund the development of effective treatments for aging, as well as the development of longer-term cures for mortality. At the point where those treatments become more widely available, arguments against them will start looking a lot sillier.

oldmanjay 11y ago

Society has the right to try, but banning things has this way of not actually working, so it's probably best to plan for the reality that if it can happen, it will.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> Society has the right to try It really, really doesn't. Note the first item "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", or the equivalents in other fundamental statements of rights.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

I really, really hope you're being a devil's advocate and you don't actually advocate mass murder of the elderly to make room for the young. If your society attempted to commit mass murder, your society would be removed by force and replaced by one that did not. And if that sounds like hyperbole, so does the concept that all societies would intentionally withhold a cure to the single most deadly affliction humanity suffers from: aging.

qsymmachus 11y ago
There is a big difference between arguing that radical life extension could have serious social and environmental costs, and arguing that we should execute the elderly. Death is not an unmitigated evil, nor is eternal youth an unmitigated good. I don't think that's a radical argument.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > There is a big difference between arguing that radical life extension could have serious social and environmental costs, and arguing that we should execute the elderly. I agree. Discussing ways to solve those problems would be an aspect of the former, which is completely reasonable. However, at the point where you suggested that society could ban life extension, you started arguing for the latter. Follow your argument to its logical conclusion. What are you proposing, and what would the effect be? You suggested intentionally withholding a cure for a degenerative disease (namely, aging). How else could that possibly be interpreted? > Death is not an unmitigated evil, nor is eternal youth an unmitigated good. I don't think that's a radical argument. It's safe to say that's our fundamental point of disagreement. Personally, I plan to address that disagreement by continuing to donate to fund the development of effective treatments for aging, as well as the development of longer-term cures for mortality. At the point where those treatments become more widely available, arguments against them will start looking a lot sillier.