anonymous779

I'm glad that you or your government were able to afford state-of-art medical treatment. I won't be eligible for such luxurious treatment by virtue of being born in the wrong country.

Best regards, yours 3rd world anonymous.

> I find this anger against death weird.

Of course you do, because accepting death is a huge part of our culture, a part we developed to make coping easier. It's hard to think differently from how you have been taught to.

>Death is part of our lives and we should accept it without the drama

Who says that and for what purpose (who benefits from status quo) ? Note that death isn't even a law of physics, it's just a consequence of our biological structure and our genetic makeup. Many organisms live much shorter lives than humans, but some live 3-10x longer than us (For example Arctica Islandica clamshell lives >400 years, Bowhead Whales and Koi fish live ~200 years, Pinus longaeva trees live up to 5000 years). These are scientific facts.

Then, there are genetic engineering experiments [1] that produce C. Elegans nematodes that live 5x longer lives than wild ones. There are less dramatic but positive results for mice.

Humans aren't special, it means that some future variants of these techniques could be applied to humans either to produce longer-living individuals or to increase lifespan of existing ones.

If you still think that someone's life is not worth extending you are simply being amoral. Please decide such important matters only for yourself and not for others. I'm sure there are more than enough humans that would prefer to extend their lives.

1. Germline signaling mediates the synergistically prolonged longevity produced by double mutations in daf-2 and rsks-1 in C. elegans. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24332851

We don't have to, these (108-7) billions of people will (sadly) never ever come back. We have just 7.3 bln people and a planet with more than enough resources to sustain them and then some more (I could give some practical computations regarding the limits to growth, but I won't waste our time doing that here). So your whole argument about all people that have ever lived is basically a strawman.

If you gave modern-age people a choice: to live a short life or live a long life while limiting their rate of childbirth (or ceasing reproduction altogether), I think many would choose the former. Having a choice is always better than having none.

Also note that your current (probably?) western lifestyle puts several times more load on the environment than mine 3rd world-like one. It is the wasteful lifestyle choices made by living people that are really a problem, not the quantity of people in itself.

I'm sure the society of the future will be way more humane than the current one, or at least not worse. I don't consider it as a problem.

About rat, you have a point, but there was recent experiment where cryopreserved rabbit kidney was successfully reimplanted and worked as intended. Also there was a recent brain preservation competition, and the winning method was shown by SEM microscopy to preserve very fine synaptic structure. You can google these things if you are interested (I won't post the links to avoid looking like a shill or a fanatic).

Looks like a better alternative to 20k$ (as was said earlier in this thread) euthanasia + perhaps 10k$ for funeral expense.