To be fair, if you cure aging, you drastically reduce (or make non-existent) the incidence rate of most diseases, since they tend to appear as you get older. I think curing aging is the ultimately smart thing to do.

> ... if you cure aging...

That's a big if. We've spent millions of year evolving to last long enough to reproduce and care for our young. Beyond that, our bodies break down in all sorts of ways ("aging"), and "curing" all of them seems unlikely. Shortening telomeres, reduced muscle and bone mass, slower metabolism, macular degeneration, worn cartilage, arterial plaque...

The ultimately smart thing to do would be to make our current 80 or so years of life as healthy as possible.

From what I have learned the most important cause of aging is cancer defense. As we get older DNA gets more and more damaged and cancer a bigger and bigger risk. To prevent cancer, the body slows down cell division. But cell division is very important. It's through cell division that our body renews itself and heals. With a slower division rate we become frail.

So if we could strike at the root cause, and heal DNA damage, then we wouldn't have to worry about cancer, and we would be able to turn cell division up and become more youthful. Or alternatively if we could develop better cancer cures, we could turn cell division up and deal with problems as they arise.

Now DNA damage isn't the only thing we would have to fix. For instance some poisons and junk cannot be eliminated by the body and stay with us permanently. We would need to find ways to clean them up.

For some reason people see aging as an illness, some unfortunate byproduct of natural processes.

It is not. It is tuned to pefection. You are _made_ to die, it is builtin, it is a feature. Notice how from 0 to 20 you don't "age", you just get stronger and better. How? Some species are considered young in their 40s.

You consume enough nutrients and energy to constantly fix yourself. You won't. Why? You need to die for evolution to work. Just die already.

We have not evolved to die. Rather we have not had enough selection pressure to evolve ways to make us live longer. Big difference.

Elders' need for care may have burdened the success of their living descendants. In this sense we may have evolved to die.

A counterargument is that past generations lived too rarely to the point of natural death ("Intrinsic senescence") to experience selective pressure. I feel the burden of proof is in showing this.

An interesting discussion is whether or how an encoded trait that's negatively selected for is different than one that was never factored into the equation.

It might've been a feature originally, however I changed my mind which is another thing we evolved for.

Assuming that aging is “curable” and not some fanciful daydream to avoid thinking about dying.

But again, it’s just perspective I guess. I don’t care when some rich dude buys a basketball team. If this is how they want to spend their money then go nuts.

Well aging is a physical process, why shouldn't it be theoretically reversible?

Shredding a piece of paper is a physical process and that’s a tough one to reverse without a lot of scotch tape and a lot of patience. And in the end it’s still not the same piece of paper you started with.

I never said it is easy. Even you do not believe it's entirely impossible, right? Let's wait 100 years and see. I'm fairly positive I'll be still alive and so might you.

Yes, I believe it is entirely impossible. If I am somehow wrong and it is possible it’s only going to accelerate society’s descent into a true sci-if style dystopia.

I hope to god I am not alive in 100 years. The earth is going to be absolute shit by then.

Hmm. Why do you think so? Wouldn't such stance among you and your peers actually perform as a self-fulfilling prophecy and why not do something about it?

There’s no need to do anything about anything. I mean just look at the world. It’s obvious that there’s no reversing global warming. We just like our modern lives too much to make any significant sacrifices. There are also too many people as it is so we’re just going to keep ratcheting that number up by helping people live longer with this miracle anti-aging treatment?

I have 0 interest in living longer than is “natural.” Honestly I don’t even want to live that long! I mean what’s the point, live longer to just barely keep getting by and keep working as long as possible?

What is the point? How many people have you talked today? Everyone outside has an interesting story to share. The world is a fascinating place that should never cease to amaze you.

Honestly, IMHO your stance borders with depression, please get that checked.

For example, we could continue development of nuclear technology and solar arrays. Both of these technologies are guaranteed to be a success (the principle is proven) and offer solutions to most of our energy-related problems. We need to push harder! And I'm sure we can do it. Cultured meat and vertical farming is going to help solving our environmental crisis and will free significant space for new and old population.

What's the problem with immortality?

As a mortal, I'm all for it!