[flagged]
As I understand it, the metabolic rate in most people is pretty good and constant until about 60 and starts to drop off. I would be happy with a treatment that provides good strong health from 60 to 100 and then a sudden death. I don’t want to be infirm/disabled by age, not able to enjoy life and be a burden to my family.
Its rather a constant management of ever increasing problems ranging from small to massive ones, and eventually losing either gradually or suddenly. Absolutely no dignity from the system.
Switzerland at least has enough sanity to allow assisted suicide so all world rich and powerful come here to die. As rather strict christian country that's what showing actual respect looks like.
My Mom is 79 and often says she doesn't know anyone when she goes out. Her eyesight and hearing are both poor but not to the point of not seeing or hearing at all. But she said in stores, church, anywhere she goes there is nobody she recognizes even older people. So if you make it to old age and are in good health not stuck in a home and are mobile and can converse with people it can be very lonely if you are not good at making friends at that stage of life.
Anti-aging treatment would be healthcare, and except in the short-term would increase the load on the rest of healthcare outside of its own costs.
Age is different. Look at health expenses per decade - the difference is like night and day. Most people in their 20s and 30s don't even visit a hospital. The healthcare expense for most of them can simply be rounded to zero. Some time in the 60s things change dramatically (health degradation is supralinear with age). So if you manage to push back the health of seniors to, for example, their 50s, you pretty much solve healthcare permanently.
Seems quite awkward operationally even if everyone agrees with the principle behind it.
And even if you agree that it's problematic when older voters sway decisions that will affect future generations more than them, does matching the number of non-voters at each end of the spectrum solve that? And does the solution bring more benefits than the negatives of losing the experience of those old people + the negative of stripping a huge group of current voters of their voting rights?
Agreed but why is longevity research the problem here? Our laws around money , taxation and property were fashioned when average human life was around 40. We haven't adapted since
80 years was only achieved recently because of various quality of life and medical advances. Do you feel that those are 'ok' for other reasons, or for example, that things that cure cancer, HIV, or better sanitation that increase lifespan should also be repealed if it was up to you? Or do you feel we just happen to have the perfect amount of life-extending conditions at this exact moment?
Those improvements in healthcare are fine in my eyes. Someone could argue that dying because of some illness that we cured is also natural. Perhaps yes, but for me the baseline is healing the "unlucky" instances - viruses, cancers etc.
My golden standard worth aiming for is someone like the nonagenarians in Sardinia or Okinawa - someone who ate healthy food, lived in a tight happy community, low amount of stress and lucky to evade any serious illness. Those people still die and this is fine.
I would like everyone to have a chance to live like this, this to me is the natural limit of human body.
I am not a fan of extending life beyond this limit.
The overloading of healthcare is because of aging.
Also, it's ridiculous that the current world is worse off than if people didn't age but there were government hitman roaming around who kill you sometime between the ages of 90 and 100...
So you are pro anti-aging. If our 90 year olds are as springy as our 20 years olds they are certainly not grumpy or overloading healthcare.
Very few people that die 'made peace with their morality'. Why is it a prerequisite? How do you assign value to another person's life simply based on if they made you cringe or not? That's cringe.
If the rotating cloud of gas and dust stayed forever, there would be no Earth. If the chemical compounds would be super stable, there would be no life. And so on. Systems are kept in equilibrium by this, otherwise they became unstable.
Making space for the next, better entity is a cosmological principle.
If you can't make peace with that, I am sad for you.
It's not some deep philosophy, it's basic science.
The tapestry of live consists of all the individual threads (lives) and if someone of those threads never ended, new threads cannot be in the space they occupy. That's trivially true. And to me that does the same to the tapestry of live what a cancer cell does to an individual body.
We already have shit like, let's say, old people starting a war of aggression over oil and profits for Halliburton et al, and then torture someone like Assange, who is still not free. And that's even though they'll only live for a few decades at most! If they knew they could potentially live hundreds or thousands of years, the gloves would come off in ways you cannot even imagine, and if that's "2deep4u" or "conspiracy theory" for you that's great, don't bother telling me.
Public inavailability of medical care is rather a US problem.
Not joking.
Do we need all the professional content creators of the modern age, or is that a hobby created by advertisers as an excuse for more adverts?
Yes. It's just "content" to fill a box with the ads around it. "Content" can be anything. Generic.