Re:No limit to maximal lifespan in humans: how to beat a 122...
by ben_w on Thursday December 16, 2021 @10:54AM
(#29579449)
> I'm arguing for nonintervention, based on the precautionary principle.
That’s fine, but not what you wrote before.
> This technology has substantial potential for social harm
Yup, like everything.
> and should not be pursued until all of those concerns are addressed.
Nope.
Because death itself has direct harm — indeed, it is widely regarded as the either the worst or among the worst things one person can do to another — the burden of proof is on those who say it would be bad to delay death as much as possible.
I mean, we already delay death as much as possible with all kinds of medical interventions.
That’s fine, but not what you wrote before.
> This technology has substantial potential for social harm
Yup, like everything.
> and should not be pursued until all of those concerns are addressed.
Nope.
Because death itself has direct harm — indeed, it is widely regarded as the either the worst or among the worst things one person can do to another — the burden of proof is on those who say it would be bad to delay death as much as possible.
I mean, we already delay death as much as possible with all kinds of medical interventions.