You're not forced to die by nature anymore than you're forced to keep your feet on the ground. Nature is not forcing you to do anything. It doesn't know you're alive and it doesn't think. It's not limiting your human freedom because it has no concept of human freedom and your freedom does not exist materially. Therefore it's silly to frame this as it being morally wrong to not pursue technology that stops you from dying. You can say it's morally wrong to not pursue airplanes and rockets despite us knowing the exact cost of such things in terms of lives and resources. I mean, gravity is limiting your human freedom to not touch the ground.
Two he finally addresses the real reason most people are opposed, because it's only accessible to the rich. And the answer to that is "well yeah, under capitalism. but under something else it would be for everyone." No shit. So the moral problem here isn't doing life extension research it's overthrowing capitalism. Everything before this thought is moot. It doesn't matter if you think death is unfair or immoral or whatever. And are you willing to kill to get that other system under which we can all live longer? Are you willing to die yourself so that strangers you will never know can live longer? Those are some moral questions. Not some argument you had with people on twitter over life extension.
The elimination of differing health care access by social class seems, to me, to be a prerequisite to pursuing life extension. The first priority is to make sure that poor people have access to the same opportunities for (what are presently classified as) long lives as rich people. Then we can try to extend lives at the top end. In other words, first we should make sure everyone is living to 80 rather than dying of treatable illnesses at 50. After that we can talk about how to raise the average to 85 or 90 or 15,000.
>make sure poor people have access to the same opportunities
Fuck ooooooooooff fancy lad. Ensuring access to opportunities is why we're fucking here to begin with.
All this is just abstract academic arguments to this fucker. None of it is real.
I mean I could see a future scenario where youth extension is actually achieved by the rich, meaning the next step (in that particular scenario) would be to just appropriate that tech and distribute it to everyone else.
Is there a cause to think that the technology for life extension can't be scaled? Because what is inaccessible to the general population right now is cargo cultism that is adrenochrome adjacent. Like injecting the blood of your young clone. But gene therapy? Aren't people doing those in their garages?
The Anarchist Hormone Collectives will just re-tool towards IP violation of youth injections. I'm sure of it.
