[sebleon]

> better humans

Ah, sounds like you’re into eugenics. Do you believe humans are wise enough to determine what traits are favorable?

Increased longevity, for instance, seems short-sighted. We already have extreme population growth. While natural survival instincts strive to fight death, what’s the net benefit to society of helping more people make it through their 90s?

Phases like childhood and parenthood would become smaller fractions of life, does extending old age make your overall life experience better? Would society progress as quickly with more old people around?

[matte_black]

I think lifespan is only worth increasing if there is a corresponding increase in health span. My grandmothers are both in their 90s and quite lucid and healthy. I would love to be at least in their condition when I’m in my 90s, but I also am serious about exercise and nutrition so I would hope I’d be even better off than them. They do nothing of that sort. Likewise, I’d like to be with a woman at that age who would also be just as healthy, and retain her faculties. Unfortunately, unless I extensively investigate a woman’s family history, I have no way of knowing if she’ll really be capable of living that long. What good is being a very old age if my partner is disabled and limits me from certain activities?

This inequality between lifespans is going to become a much greater concern for humans in the future, you will see. Perhaps it will become most noticeable as the baby boomers begin to die.

Also, I think society could progress even faster if the wisdom and experience of old people can be harnessed and not just tossed aside as “antiquated”. We need to rethink the way we think about the elderly, because one day those elderly will be us.

[sebleon]

Right, it's better to be healthy at 90 than in chemotherapy. However, I question the societal and individual benefits of enabling everyone to live to 100.

> We need to rethink the way we think about the elderly, because one day those elderly will be us.

I find this Western fear of death to be toxic. One day we'll grow old and die - and that's ok, that's how life works.

[matte_black]

If you feel everyone shouldn’t be enabled to live to 100 because there is little benefit to society, you are not that far from thinking maybe everyone shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce unless their offspring benefit society.

I personally don’t believe either of those things should be limited, I simply believe people with good genes should have an easy way to match with each other and form a relationship. That’s it. Society will take care of the rest.

[adwn]

> One day we'll grow old and die - and that's ok, that's how life works.

That's status quo bias [1]. If you want to die, nobody will stop you – but don't force your decision onto others.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias

[adwn]

> We already have extreme population growth.

Actually, many Western countries have the opposite and need large-scale immigration (along with all the societal problems this brings) to maintain their population numbers.

[busterarm]

Part of Stephen Baxter's book Ring describes a large scale (as in population) interstellar trip and engineering the population making that trip for a long lifespan via eugenics.

If I recall correctly, the described humans were living spans greater than 400 years, among other traits, after a handful of generations.

If something as ambitious as Deep Space is your goal, you're probably better off engineering people to make the trip rather than waiting for technology that may never materialize.