[photonic28]

The improbability of immortality does not mean that life extension is worthless. Is striving to reach 80 asinine because we'll just want more? Should we have been satisfied at 40? The status quo is no argument for what we should want to achieve.

In fact, I'll argue that any serious life extension will have to come with a similarly extended lease on quality. Senesence will need to be stemmed upstream, so more of your 120 years will be good years.

[pron]

Except there might be unseen consequences. It's all very hard to predict, but here's one example. Suppose human life is extended by 20 years. For some, it might be enough to start a second (or third) career. For others -- maybe not. Which means that people will need to remain in their career for a much longer duration, which might cause them considerable distress. Then again, maybe not.

[scobar]

There will almost certainly be unseen consequences. Some may be negative, but I believe the aggregate will be more positive (assuming senescence remains at least proportional to lifespan). As Newton stated, we may see further by standing on the shoulders of giants. As our species acquires more knowledge, the time it takes to learn what has previously been discovered often increases. Our average lifespan may become (or already be) a bottleneck to faster technological innovation.

Imagine those at age 100 preparing for the second half of their lives rather than expecting to die in the very near future. That may spawn a new phase of maturation that doesn't exist today. What if, generations from now, people recall how young and dumb they were before they turned 100?

[krapp]

I'm not saying it's worthless, i'm saying we shouldn't act as if aging or death are diseases to be cured.

[krastanov]

Why not? Aging is just one more of the imperfections of nature that we are trying to fix.

To give an example:

The fact that it might be impossible to "fix" aging is no reason to not fight against it. Just like the conservation of energy law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics are no reason for us not to try to inch closer and closer to the theoretical limits of efficiency in clean energy production.

[photonic28]

Why should any disease be cured if not to extend the life and quality of life of the person suffering it?

[lotsofmangos]

You don't have to. Some other people doing so might find out something useful along the way.

[delinquentme]

no. we should absolutely, act as if aging and death is something to be cured.

A rose by any other name, is just as sweet. I mean to say, all of the STUFF associated with malady is there. So how / why does death/aging ... with all its symptoms ... differ?

It doesn't.

[krapp]

It differs in that it can't be cured. Although I suppose you could consider it a terminal illness then by definition.

Life can be extended, perhaps. Made more productive, certainly. But a cure for death? Show me one organism in nature anywhere near as complex as a human being with the capacity for unlimited aging and I'll believe it's possible. Technologically extending life for a few decades on average with a battery of complex and expensive medical treatments is not a cure.

Otherwise, looking at death or aging as a disease, while it might provide the catalyst for any number of worthwhile medical advances, also provides false hope. It's like waiting for the Singularity to happen so we can all upload our minds into the Eschaton. It's just another form of hoping for an afterlife.

Yes, absolutely act as if it can be cured, but don't believe it can.