> "Agelessness might cause some social problems, but if the choice is between "everyone dying" and "needing societal innovation to avoid stagnation", it's hardly a choice at all."
Needing societal innovation does not mean you're going to get societal innovation, though.
Also, a cure for aging does not mean that nobody will die from old age. It means that the people who can afford the treatment won't die of old age. The poor will continue to die.
Re:A man who is ageing too fast
by rossnordby on Wednesday May 22, 2019 @12:52PM
(#19983039)
Both of those things are potential issues, yes. And they should be kept in mind so the future can be less bad.
But they are not unsolvable problems, nor do they imply that aging is better than agelessness. They just imply we have to work harder, because again, the alternative is the death of everyone.
In an alternate Earth where humans never aged to begin with and society started stagnating (or worse) because of it, I doubt that the world's top minds would come up with 'kill literally everyone at X years of age' as their first option (or second, or third...). That would be comic book supervillainy.
These kinds of concerns aren't invalid, I just hope they are considered with a wide enough perspective. In terms of direct and indirect suffering, it's hard to do worse than aging.