Can you imagine what this planet would be like if people didn't die? How much more crowded we'd be? How much more of a strain we'd be placing on the earth's resources?
The general principle, to me, is that whatever the "ideal" rate of death is, for any given set of values and preferences, it would be an astonishing coincidence if it coincidentally happened to be exactly the current rate today.
If we woke up tomorrow to a world where humans didn't suffer degenerative aging and the vast majority of fatal illness (cancer) were treatable, would you start by advocating for mass executions, or would you advocate for increased birth control, renewable energy, reduced resource consumption rates, finding ways to make productive use of otherwise-uninhabited areas of earth, space travel, etc. before you started advocating for murdering billions of humans?
The very idea that this would cross your mind after reading my comment shows that you are not interested in having any kind of serious discussion about this topic.
If your comment wasn't intended to advocate for pro-death policies, I'm very confused about what you were trying to communicate here.
My reading of your comment is that you first asked the reader if they can imagine what the planet would be like if nobody died, then implied through what appears to be rhetorical questions that it would be much more crowded and much more of a strain on the earth's resources.
There's a lot of diversity in the use of English, so we may have experience with different rhetorical traditions, but my experience is that rhetorical structures like that are pretty exclusively intended to express condemnation of the subject and anyone who would support it, implying that they're ignoring the disastrous consequences of their policy.
The assumptions I inferred from your questions, stated directly, are something like the following. If you're uninterested in engaging with me after my earlier reply, I understand, but if not I'm curious which of these you disagree with.
1) If life-extension technology manages to dramatically reduce nonconsensual death, we will have a population explosion on Earth.
2) If we have a population explosion on Earth, quality of life for most humans will drop significantly.
3) If we have a population explosion on Earth, consumption of nonrenewable resources will increase dramatically, leading to resource shortages dangerous to human civilization.
4) In order to avoid a population explosion, we should stop work on life-extension technology.
5) It is better for the majority of currently-living humans to die after less than 100 years of life than for Earth civilization to undergo a population explosion.
By my best attempts at moral reasoning, withholding life-saving medical technology is morally equivalent to murder, and although I've fortunately never been in a situation to make such a decision, I hope that I can be the kind of person who would never decide for people to die through inaction that I wouldn't be theoretically willing to kill myself for the same benefits.
I hope that's given you enough perspective on my position that it doesn't seem completely hostile to serious discussion.
[edited for formatting]
Suppose humanity attains indefinite life spans in the near future. Would you then advocate murder in order to save space?
Should we outlaw antibiotics because they save lives, and those lives take up resources?
I find this argument both unimaginative (improving technology changes the nature of our challenges) and repulsive (it's advocating murder through inaction).
No, and putting words in my mouth like that is extremely uncivil. We're talking about people who have already died.
"I find this argument both unimaginative (improving technology changes the nature of our challenges) and repulsive (it's advocating murder through inaction)."
And I find your tone repulsive and uncivil, as you're making extreme assumptions about my positions.
Not to mention, you're only advocating that we save the rich. I don't see you setting up a GoFundMe to preserve homeless people.
If the immortality is based on "brain uploading", maybe just an extra EC2 instance per family of four.
We're a very very long way away from being able to survive if Earth fails. It is foolish to bet on any kind of interplanetary survival strategy at this point. Getting humans to other worlds is by far the easiest part of that equation.