It's wild to think that aging is something that needs to be cured, and isn't a part of the natural human experience. I'm so tired of people trying to play the role of God, as well as people that cheer these sorts of things on.
Most people want more life. For most people it's also the most terrifying part of "the natural human experience".
If you're happy to die, why be bothered by others' trying to live longer? You won't be around. And assuming people can finance it themselves, is it really a problem for society?
I assume you mean that dying is the most terrifying pat of the natural human experience. Also, I'm not sure why you infer that me thinking death is a natural part of life, means that I'm happy or eager to die.
There are many reasons that people living forever would be a problem for society, the most obvious being an ever-increasing population.
Also things like chronic disease and violence are a "natural" part of life but we seek to minimize or eliminate them, why do we have to accept a "natural" death and not attempt to put it off as long as possible?
> the most obvious being an ever-increasing population
This notion seems to be commonly accepted as bad without being properly examined.
Why is a larger population in and of itself a problem? Lots of societies throughout history have used less resources than we have and we have superior tech now. We are well within our abilities to use the same or less resources with a much larger population. Why should there be a limit based solely on undefined notions of "too many"?
Fertility rates are below replacement, which means that population sizes are convergent. A decreasing population is a more likely future scenario for many western countries, even if human lifespan was indefinite.
Fertility rates are currently below replacement, there's no good reason to imagine they will always be that way, particularly after global population numbers peak and fall to, say, half or a quarter of their peak.
What's the basis for your claim? You seem to be saying that people are magically going to have more children because there is a desperate need for them? Maybe if government finances this but how will that work economically at such a huge scale? Will children be born in debt for their birth?
Because living longer is a huge drain on resources that could be better spent on other things. End of life care is expensive and rarely results in a "good" life for the the life being extended.
Only in places like the US, which is out of its mind in this regard.
In most other western countries, they just let (old) people with terminal conditions die.
> living longer is a huge drain on resources that could be better spent on other things
That's not right. Any living is a drain on resources and draining resources is the issue not the living. More broadly we need to use less resources or manage them better and there are much better ways in doing that than reducing life.
So I think curing means basically opt in death or something like that. Right now extended life is bad because the person isn't in his prime but curing aging is basically gonna keep him in his prime. This might be what they meant.
Yes, I think it's a problem for society. Death in old age frees up social, economic, physical, and political resources for the next generation of the living. If the rich and powerful escape death, because after all they will the people with the resources to do so, society will lose the adaptability and natural change that comes from new generations taking the reins.
The point is that the kind of horrendous diseases you see affecting babies are also, many of them, natural parts of the human experience, just as much as aging. And yet we all like the fact that pediatric hospitals exist to cure these natural diseases.
Childhood deaths and fatal diseases are also natural parts but that doesn't make them desirable to everyday humans. But with new advances, people might have the ability to CHOOSE in future.
No matter what standard of care you receive, senescence will gradually kill you even with therapies or treatments to slow it. It's a part of the built-in natural lifecycle that humans can't avoid; it's not analogous to the treatment of incidental injury like pneumonia or sepsis.
> No matter what standard of care you receive, senescence will gradually kill you even with therapies or treatments to slow it.
That doesn't mean that it can't be entirely reversed. We already know that senescence is not a completely required part of life itself, or even of eukaryotic and/or multicellular organisms - as we have known examples of organisms that don't experience it. For example, jellyfish don't experience senescence (they go through a revolving cycle of polyp - jellyfish that can go on forever as far as we can tell). And even if true permanence is out of reach, we also know of animals that live for hundreds of years, and of plants and fungi that live for thousands or tens of thousands of years.
So, having a way to make something like a human (though possibly quite different from what we call a human, to be fair) live for at least a few hundred years if not much more is a very difficult but certainly solvable bioengeneering problem, not some philosophically impossible feat.
