You need to think of the cost of this kind of treatment at this stage as R&D. If it works thousands of people will benefit, have longer lives and contribute back more than the lifesaving treatment will cost.
we can justify having an option for people’s self preservation instincts without having to make up that fairy tale, more elderly humans will probably be a net negative
It seems like you're the negative one here. There is nothing inherently negative about living longer - just potential to have learned far more than others from experience. Any biological issues with existing for longer can have solutions, for which may be tackled better with more good minds put forth to the task.
but it is illuminating to see a passionate audience’s reading comprehension ability
it says treatments and extending life is desirable and doesn't need a reason and the reason presented would be a waste of energy to debate and quantify while doing so isnt even necessary, read it again until it makes sense that way
I think he’s implying that everyone dies, everyone will ultimately live through some life arc, and letting people survive a fatal illness invariably causes the average age of the population to rise and at some point the costs outweigh the benefits. So what’s the point of a longer arc of life?
My personal counterpoint: pancreatic cancers tend to strike anywhere in adulthood, so survival could yet lead to many years of productive life. Also, having grandparents is good, even if they’ve retired. Maybe especially if they’ve retired.
Another point to indicate that the elderly do contribute back: if the elderly were a net negative while we evolved (which involved a lot more physical labor than typical work does today), there'd be selection pressures against the genes that confer longevity. And yet we've evolved in a way that the typical person will live long past the age of reproductive viability.
Concretely, humans aren't that much smarter than chimps. We did reach a point, however, where knowledge can be transferred and processed efficiently across individuals ("society"). The elderly play a net positive role in facilitating and maintaining these knowledge transfer networks, particularly to their kin.
An additional personal counterpoint: I know three very productive knowledge workers over the age of 70 who all say they'll stop working when they're dead.
My wife and I can only both work because our elderly parents take on childcare responsibility for us (because paid childcare is very often extremely expensive and very often very overcrowded), and our parents teach and enrich the lives of our children immeasurably.
Take care of the elderly. Build systems and habits of care and compassion that you want to be able to rely upon when you get old.
I think you are all in agreement; I interpreted the above comment as implying the exact opposite - don't make economic arguments that people saved will contribute more, because elderly people may not actually do that, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it on other grounds, precisely as you are doing here.
I read yieldrcv as saying that people not dying is good on its own merit, so we don't need an economic argument. The survival instinct is enough justification on its own.
We may not need to contrive some reason why saving lives will actually save us money, and therefore saving lives is good.
If you need an economic reason to save lives, you will have to do incredible gymnastics to justify medical treatment for old people, for instance.
So don't do the acrobatics. We can just say that medicine is good, actually.
yes, jtlienwis is making an economic argument to justify the treatment. yieldcrv is arguing that the economic argument may be invalid (i.e. it's a "fairy tale" to believe the treatment will pay for itself through economic activity, but there are non-economic arguments to justify treatment (i.e. "we can justify having an option for people’s self preservation" - the treatment is an option for self-preservation and self-preservation can be justified on other grounds)
Not OP, but I think the gist was more about not needing to justify life-saving treatment in terms of cost-effectiveness over someone's life - people just want to live as long as possible, and that's OK in spite of the 'net negative' of increasing the aging population that it can result in.
I think the accuracy of that 'net negative' assumption is definitely not a given and that's what most folks are reacting to.
You haven't thought this through and need more life experience to understand why this is important. When the experience comes you will not enjoy it. You will be lesser for it but you will understand.