[the__alchemist]

I agree with this article's arguments, and find in general, arguments philosophically opposed to extending human lifespan to be trivial to knock down (Ones listed in the article and otherwise). The elephant in the room appears to be more can we do it? And if so, will this involve genome modification (Through molecular bio techniques, or directed evolution as suggested by Dawkins). Optimists hope for treatments for the still-living... I'm not sure if this will ever be possible for significant extensions; we'll see.

[keiferski]

Here’s a counter argument: I don’t want to live in the kind of world implied by a focus on life extension. I’m okay with it “happening in the background” in the way that modern medicine has improved lifespans over the last century. But I wouldn’t want it to be a direct imperative part of everyday life.

I don’t inherently have a problem with the idea of people living longer, and I don’t really have an issue with research going into it - but I do have a problem with the cultural environment that would exist under such a philosophy. All adventurous spirit would evaporate, all dangerous activities banned or strongly discouraged.

If the only way you can die is by getting physically injured, you can expect social pressure against doing anything that is even the slightest bit physically dangerous. The world would be a scared, fearful place, and I think this is a net negative for the human spirit.

I don’t worry about that too much though, as I do think you’d get a major counter cultural backlash to such a cultural situation. You can already feel echoes of it today: white collar workers looking for a job that is “more real” or with their hands; kids wanting to be Navy Seals or join the military purely because they can’t stomach the office lifestyle. A certain percentage of people will always prefer adventure to safety and cold rationality, and you can see this emerge as a trend frequently throughout history (e.g., Romanticism coming after Enlightenment rationalism.)

That also touches on a second point, which is that the entire life extension project is basically a domain of the rich in hyper individualist Western countries, functioning as an ersatz replacement for a heaven they no longer believe in. It’s fundamentally a rejection of the reality of death in human existence, and that is partially why it may simply be outcompeted by more group-oriented cultures that aren’t as centered on maximizing individual experience as long as possible.

I’m just guessing here, and perhaps there is no data to support this, but: I get the impression that people with robust family and community lives are less concerned with maximizing their individual lifespans as much as possible. This is probably because they derive more meaning from their place in that community than in their individualist existence. And you could probably also bring in religion and the belief in an afterlife here (see birth rates correlated with religiosity, for example.)

[ImHereToVote]

Bit of a leap there.

[reverendsteveii]

I think the "can we do it" can only really exist if you purposefully ignore the fact that we've been doing it for thousands of years and it has been undeniably working.