I optimistically expect to witness the advent of a global 'panacea' in my lifetime thanks to AI's efforts. Cost effective large scale genetic engineering, a cure for every disease, potentially even a cure for aging.
The future is both beautiful and terrifying.
this is a religious belief, maybe you should stop to really examine that (because it might be unintentionally so), but just know that it is obvious to anyone reading these words (anyone who is not mesmerized by technology)
How does that work for drugs? We can’t let AIs make millions of test drugs and try them out on people.
If you're happy to die, why be bothered by others' trying to live longer? You won't be around. And assuming people can finance it themselves, is it really a problem for society?
There are many reasons that people living forever would be a problem for society, the most obvious being an ever-increasing population.
Your post was vague and emotive, I did my best.
Also things like chronic disease and violence are a "natural" part of life but we seek to minimize or eliminate them, why do we have to accept a "natural" death and not attempt to put it off as long as possible?
> the most obvious being an ever-increasing population
This notion seems to be commonly accepted as bad without being properly examined.
Why is a larger population in and of itself a problem? Lots of societies throughout history have used less resources than we have and we have superior tech now. We are well within our abilities to use the same or less resources with a much larger population. Why should there be a limit based solely on undefined notions of "too many"?
Only in places like the US, which is out of its mind in this regard.
In most other western countries, they just let (old) people with terminal conditions die.
> living longer is a huge drain on resources that could be better spent on other things
That's not right. Any living is a drain on resources and draining resources is the issue not the living. More broadly we need to use less resources or manage them better and there are much better ways in doing that than reducing life.
I'd also say people may want more life for themselves, but what does that mean at scale, forever?
Child mortality is very low now compared to the past, thanks to the modern medicine and technology.
I am glad humanity "played God", and reduced this unnecessary child suffering.
No matter what standard of care you receive, senescence will gradually kill you even with therapies or treatments to slow it. It's a part of the built-in natural lifecycle that humans can't avoid; it's not analogous to the treatment of incidental injury like pneumonia or sepsis.
That doesn't mean that it can't be entirely reversed. We already know that senescence is not a completely required part of life itself, or even of eukaryotic and/or multicellular organisms - as we have known examples of organisms that don't experience it. For example, jellyfish don't experience senescence (they go through a revolving cycle of polyp - jellyfish that can go on forever as far as we can tell). And even if true permanence is out of reach, we also know of animals that live for hundreds of years, and of plants and fungi that live for thousands or tens of thousands of years.
So, having a way to make something like a human (though possibly quite different from what we call a human, to be fair) live for at least a few hundred years if not much more is a very difficult but certainly solvable bioengeneering problem, not some philosophically impossible feat.