[Comevius]

I'm on board with curing aging-related illnesses, just not aging itself, which is definitely not a disease. It's humanity's single most important pillar. Looking at it like a disease is completely misguided. Humanity wouldn't be able to exist without aging. Aging is the key to everything.

[metadat]

> disease (n.)

> a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.

Why do you consider aging not a disease? AFAICT, the degradation and signs it causes seem to tick the definitional boxes.

I was surprised to see this opinion originating from you, @Comevius. I've grown accustomed to finding myself in violent agreement with ye. :)

[Comevius]

Yeah, I'm really conservative when it comes to curing aging, because the whole thing is a lot more complicated than it looks like. You can't just eliminate it without dire consequences. It's a degradation, but it's one that plays a central role in eliminating stagnation. I'm awfully allergic to oligarchs, and stopping aging would open the door to a completely new crop of überoligarchs that belong to the pages of a sci-fi horror.