Via @[588732176:2048:Christine Peterson] and @[545830089:2048:Peter Voss]
"The traditional objections raised against the idea of longer lifespans touch a variety of different topics, but they can all be reduced down to a single, general form: "Rejuvenation biotechnologies would cause a specific problem, so it's best not to go there." Here, we're not going to question whether rejuvenation will cause a certain problem or not; rather, whatever problem we may be talking about, let us assume that it will happen and weigh it against the benefits of the defeat of aging.
To do so, let's keep in mind that aging kills about 100,000 people a day; that is, it accounts for two-thirds of all deaths worldwide. Moreover, it causes an indecent amount of suffering, disability, and debilitation, making the last decades of one's life increasingly miserable. To that, we must add all the problems of an aging society - money and resources spent on pensions and geriatrics with little to no utility, practical and emotional burden on the families of the elderly, too many retired people to be supported by a declining younger population, the lot of them. Let's also not forget that these are virtually everyone's problems. Is the above better than the potential side effects of the defeat of aging and the countermeasures we might thus have to take?
For example, suppose we determined that rejuvenation would cause such an unmanageable population increase that, in order to prevent it, it would be necessary to limit births worldwide, at least until we were able to support a larger population. Is asking all people to become sick and die better than asking those who want children to postpone their parenthood plans?
Another example: imagine that an evil dictator used rejuvenation to prolong his reign of terror by decades. So, on one hand, nobody would suffer and die of aging anymore; on the other hand, people who lived under the dictator would have to endure the dictatorship for longer. Forget for a moment that waiting for a dictator to die of old age isn't the best way to get rid of him; rather, let's reflect on this: would the amount of suffering caused by the dictator to a fraction of the human population be worse than that caused by aging to everyone? Would it be fair to ask the whole world to give up on lifesaving medical technology so that no dictator could ever use it to continue oppressing a minority that could be saved by more effective means anyway?"
https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2017/10/no-problem-that-can-possibly-be-produced-by-rejuvenation-therapies-is-worse-than-not-having-rejuvenation-therapies/
"The traditional objections raised against the idea of longer lifespans touch a variety of different topics, but they can all be reduced down to a single, general form: "Rejuvenation biotechnologies would cause a specific problem, so it's best not to go there." Here, we're not going to question whether rejuvenation will cause a certain problem or not; rather, whatever problem we may be talking about, let us assume that it will happen and weigh it against the benefits of the defeat of aging.
To do so, let's keep in mind that aging kills about 100,000 people a day; that is, it accounts for two-thirds of all deaths worldwide. Moreover, it causes an indecent amount of suffering, disability, and debilitation, making the last decades of one's life increasingly miserable. To that, we must add all the problems of an aging society - money and resources spent on pensions and geriatrics with little to no utility, practical and emotional burden on the families of the elderly, too many retired people to be supported by a declining younger population, the lot of them. Let's also not forget that these are virtually everyone's problems. Is the above better than the potential side effects of the defeat of aging and the countermeasures we might thus have to take?
For example, suppose we determined that rejuvenation would cause such an unmanageable population increase that, in order to prevent it, it would be necessary to limit births worldwide, at least until we were able to support a larger population. Is asking all people to become sick and die better than asking those who want children to postpone their parenthood plans?
Another example: imagine that an evil dictator used rejuvenation to prolong his reign of terror by decades. So, on one hand, nobody would suffer and die of aging anymore; on the other hand, people who lived under the dictator would have to endure the dictatorship for longer. Forget for a moment that waiting for a dictator to die of old age isn't the best way to get rid of him; rather, let's reflect on this: would the amount of suffering caused by the dictator to a fraction of the human population be worse than that caused by aging to everyone? Would it be fair to ask the whole world to give up on lifesaving medical technology so that no dictator could ever use it to continue oppressing a minority that could be saved by more effective means anyway?"
https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2017/10/no-problem-that-can-possibly-be-produced-by-rejuvenation-therapies-is-worse-than-not-having-rejuvenation-therapies/