> I cannot see a world in which this could be deemed healthy.
I cannot see a world in which fighting and avoiding natural death can take healthy forms. All matter decays. All things recycle. We have material bodies, hence we are part of the cycle of life. The old giving way to the new is a necessity for growth & evolution. I would even say it's beautiful. And healthy.
I'm not "just being offensive". Death is harmful, and insisting it must happen is perpetrating death. If you insist this, you are perpetrating a harmful ideology that interferes with research into senescence and therefore contributes to suffering.
I'm just concerned with the possibility of us "winning over death" and how it would transform everything. It's not another cure for an illness or another 100 years to live. It's no one ever going away without someone else making them. For better or worse. That's not a part of life. That's an entirely different existence.
People who claim it would be bad to live long are either coping or had a chance at a decent life or believe it would somehow cause unsolvable problems.
Let's say a mysterious virus spreads through the population, and edits all our DNA with the only effect that we all suddenly gain negligible senescence - people still die from accidents and acute diseases, but everyone retains the same level of general healthiness as a young adult with no aging. In that situation, would you be advocating that everyone take medicine to turn aging and death from aging back on?
So whats the limit? Its a big question that dosen't need to be answered now, because immortality is not on the table. Another 20 or so years maybe. So maybe lets take care of the world we got before we fall into some delusional sense of godhood. (Just upload yourfselfs bros)