Because it's the default nobody is morally implicated in electing to avoid it. There is no smothering.

On the obverse side, there's a string of unavoidable consequences and complications that are unfathomable. Once such a technique becomes available though, that culpability becomes real. And on many complex levels. It's a fools errand cartooned in the purile mind, and far more responsibility than humanity will ever be capable of justly handling.

>Because it's the default nobody is morally implicated in electing to avoid it. There is no smothering.

The trolley problem would like a word.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

You're effectively switching the track to "Strangulate the whole planet with humans and their downstream effects!", very cool, or y'know any other disasterous permutation. We've already got population issues if that isn't compelling enough for you.

Because an immortal human won't change their thinking re long term impacts on the planet. Sure buddy.

You want people to die. I think that is horrendous. Our world views seem to be fundamentally different, is there any point continuing this conversation?

You're allowed to impute whatever you may wish. My aims are the maintenance of the single rock in the known universe capable and currently sustaining life, and intelligent life at that.

Environmental impact is not even on the same axis as longevity.

If everyone lived like the average American today, the maximum sustainable population is about 70 million humans (give or take a factor of about 2), even if they’re all mortal.

Conversely one can conceive a green tech and policy future which is compatible with having trillions of ageless humans living comfortably in what are currently deserts while the rest of the world is maintained as a nature reserve.