[ominous]

> What would be the problem with, eventually, all humans needing glasses to see, or born with cornea defects? We know how to fix that.

We should optimize for a world that works, instead of one we believe we'll be able to fix forever, and constantly requires purposeful effort to work. Would you like to carry your Fix The Generalized Imbalance Pills (FTGIMP, f-gimp how we call it, as in: "Hold on love, the trekking has been fun, but know I gotta take the f----gimp") when you decide to go for a bike ride? Or will you tell me "but how many people do you know that go on bike rides for more than 10 minutes?". How many people travel the world on a shoestring? Should they stop doing that?

Would you like to go to space? How large should the infirmary be? With all these things that "we know how to do" and will be required to do, if we don't get a better vessel.

I agree the world has changed. But this vessel is still better when it is self sufficient to the max. Instead of long distance running, we will need low maintenance living. Requiring vaccines, failing joints, birth complications will not help. The resources are limited. It helps no one, in the long run, to make living more complex.

[lostlogin]

The advances you seem to think are bad lead to those who benefit from treatments being productive. They build stuff and contribute and this helps society. It helps everyone when you help those who are infirm/unwell/unlucky. But say we took the view that intervention was bad - who chooses who dies?