|
|
|
|
|
|
by loup-vaillant
5462 days ago
|
|
|
Let's compare the two: without anti-ageing tech, we all die young¹, period. With it, we have a choice: die young (but healthier), or have much fewer children, if at all (also, mind the transition period). Sure, if we choose to live longer, our standard of living may decrease. But I'm not sure. Our current world has many problem which if solved, may allow us to dramatically increase our standard of living even if we live longer. Plus, anti-ageing tech give us the choice. Even if we go for the Logan's Run route, we'll be better off than right now, where we die young and senile and not at the same age (yet another inequality factor). The only "justification" for the current situation is Mother Nature. But Mother Nature isn't All Mighty God. We don't have to listen to her. 1: lets consider for the sake of the argument that 80 years is "young", whether you are senile or not. |
|
|
Most of us die old bar any Darwin award entries. We're just redefining the term/symbol "old" when looking at anti-ageing.
Circumventing "mother nature" will just get us fucked another way. I reckon the first will be due to the social divide and emotional problems caused by those who can afford to live substantially longer.