Preventing disease by preventing age could be an unending justification for prolonging life. Are there other benefits associated with this treatment? The above explanation of the research doesn't sit well with me.
The way I'm taking it is that you think humans should live a natural life span, rather than an unnatural one boosted by a treatment, as the risk could be upheaval to our already tenuous social situation due to rising old age and supporting that. However, if a life span is extended using this treatment by a factor of, lets say conservatively 15%, and helps offset some of the illness related to ageing (heart disease etc) then that's partially resolved the situation.
There's two ways it'd go, it'd be cheap enough for many people to afford, or pricy enough for the top 10% to afford. Either way society as a whole would adapt to the change, if it's cheap and everyone can afford it then the mandatory retirement age would be lifted. We'd all be a lot healthier and we'd be capable of working longer, so pensions would take a lot longer to kick in, as would dependence on the state.
If the top 10% get it we'll have a lot of rich, long living folk doing what rich, long living folk do. Making more money. Spending more money. Society will probably adapt around that again.
It has the potential to make life on this planet untenable, but imagine what humanity could achieve if people had another 20% of time to work in. The discoveries scientists could make knowing that 20 years from being 35 they've still got chance to do another 20 year project, so fully invested in solving the problems that would take 20 years without worry it's worthless.
(I also disagree with everyone suggesting you'd be a fan of eugenics as well, as that seems out of line with that fact you seem to be a proponent of naturalised life spans)
So my issue is; there is no great societal benefit to just extending life for the sake of it, as opposed to say, making people more comfortable in their old age.
IMO the world would not benefit from millions of people living until they're 130 years old.
Screw society and 'the world', the question is have you got a damn good reason why I, as an individual, should not be allowed to extend my life if I can afford both the treatment and to support myself?
Yes, I hope so. How on earth is that a bad thing?
EDIT: PS. Thank you for not downvoting me. It's refreshing to see a difference of opinion without the vitriol
The main factors that contribute to a decreased quality of life are the same ones that eventually kill us. Namely, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and the general cognitive/motor decline that comes with aging. If we could effectively halt senescence, we'd be able to expend fewer resources on care for the elderly.
I'd say that burden isn't as much for the whole society, as for the family of each person and for that person. And it should be the decision of person (and maybe its family, but there's controversy there) if that person wants to live longer causing this burden.
I don't think state or science should decide on such things. And it's better to at least have a choice.
No. That is hyperbole in the extreme. I'm not talking about killing people once they reach 100. Take it down a notch.
The article discusses gene therapy to change animal biology to artificially extend lifespan before the complications of age present themselves, ie. in the middle of the animals life, not after the animal has aged. I'm questioning the societal benefits of this to humans.