[tablespoon]

> The poster said we shouldn’t seek immortality as it goes against evolution. By the exact same logic we shouldn’t lift a finger to medically help people beyond child rearing age. It’s the same argument.

No it isn't, and if it seems that way then you're oversimplifying. For one, someone living forever is a far bigger insult to "evolution" than someone living 20 years past "child rearing age." You only get to "gas the elderly" by being over-literal and over-strict. Living a little longer doesn't disrupt the system, but living indefinitely longer does.

[garmaine]

“Insult to evolution” is not a viable moral argument.

[tablespoon]

> “Insult to evolution” is not a viable moral argument.

So? The point was your reductio ad absurdum fails. You said "exact same logic" gets you both places, when it doesn't actually, especially once you start adding in real-world complexities.