Humans should not be immortal like gods until they attain godlike control of their impulse to consume and reproduce. If we get total liberation from nature's constraints (already 90% there), without evolving a corresponding ability to plan and resource long term, it will make the ecological disaster we're already witnessing 1000X worse and we'll likely destroy ourselves anyway.
I'm not saying death doesn't suck or that I wouldn't like to save my loved ones from the suffering that comes with old age, of course as an individual I would. Still extending life is a terrible idea from an ecologist point of view. How about while we're at it we extend the life of and provide unlimited food and protection from predation to elk? That would go real well right? Right now we are no different than Elk in our ability to manage our own consumption.
To people who say "oh we'll figure it out" I say yeah maybe but we're already wrecking this earth as it is, why add fuel to the fire? And everyone will have to die someday anyway and it will still suck.
As a counterpoint, perhaps when the next generation's crop of CEOs begins this anti-aging therapy, it will occur to them that it's prudent to plan ahead a bit further than the next quarterly profit report.
Right now, your average upper level executive knows they've got maybe 40-50 good years ahead of them before it's game over. In that light, the pervasive mindset of "make as much money as you can as fast as you can, all else be damned" makes some sense, as the cash required to keep them and their loved ones comfortable for life can be realistically obtained in a short time. When you're looking 400+ years in the future, though, that picture changes dramatically. Considering the bigger long-term perspective becomes much more personally, viscerally important.
When I read about projected consequences of climate change, most of the worst ones will be after I'm dead, and it quickly becomes abstract to me. I care, but not nearly as much as I would if I had a reasonable certainty of being stuck here in the middle of all that.
I tend to agree with you. On the other hand, being 'immortal' might be a pretty good incentive to start considering long-term problems. And especially since the first generations of 'immortals' would probably be the ultra-wealthy and ultra-powerful, that might actually do some good!
Ending aging won't make humans immortal. Humans will still die in car crashes, suicides, murders, bath slips, etc. All ending aging will do is stop us from dying slowly by decrepitude.
Life expectancy without aging is something like 550 years [1] - not my idea of immortality.
Not only it is taxing on planet earth I think there is more to it. Assume people of middle ages lived 1000 years longer than they did, I doubt the civilization on earth would have developed as far as it did.
To progress we need people to die and the new to born with radical ideas.
That's a fairly large assumption. Students need 24 years of education to get to Phd level before they reach the state of the art and push things forward. If we lived longer with augmented brain power we would have more experts in fields and thus more progress. My assertion isn't any less refutable than yours.
People do not develop interests in chronological lockstep with each other. Consider that there may be a pool of people who do not develop interests in mathematics or science until their late 20s, at which point they rationally decide it is too late to make a career of it. Increased longevity would open that pool of creative thought.
A corollary to that: removing time constraints would allow people to engage with a much broader range of experiences in a very deep way, possibly enhancing creativity and cross-fertilization of ideas.
does death suck ? I've never tried it, personally I find life has it's downsides, so to fear something I've never tried seems irrational ? I like children, and old people, if the old people don't get going at some point, where do we put the children?
On the other hand people breed less as they amuse themselves with the internet, cable and video games. The fertility rate in much of Europe is well below what's needed to keep the population constant.
I'm not saying death doesn't suck or that I wouldn't like to save my loved ones from the suffering that comes with old age, of course as an individual I would. Still extending life is a terrible idea from an ecologist point of view. How about while we're at it we extend the life of and provide unlimited food and protection from predation to elk? That would go real well right? Right now we are no different than Elk in our ability to manage our own consumption.
To people who say "oh we'll figure it out" I say yeah maybe but we're already wrecking this earth as it is, why add fuel to the fire? And everyone will have to die someday anyway and it will still suck.