We could radically extend the human lifespan. Here’s why we shouldn’t(sciencefocus.com) |
We could radically extend the human lifespan. Here’s why we shouldn’t(sciencefocus.com) |
This author does not, in fact, say why we shouldn't. There is merely a hand-wavy comparison that in countries where life expectancy has increased also have more years of declined health.
In the last two sentences of this mess, the author asks whether it's ethical to increase the lifespan of richer countries without attempting to answer. Then, asserts that fairness would mean we focus on extending the lifespan of people living in less-developed countries. I'm still trying to figure out how this got from "living longer is bad" to "we should help under-developed countries live longer."
Save yourself the time of reading this. You'll live longer.
"Drivel" is putting it charitably.
Not only does having an average lifespan ot 40 years not mean that everyone dies at 40, but it's also severely distorted by infant and early childhood mortality, which is higher than adult mortality, and increasingly so the farther back in time you go. When compared to our hunter-gatherer ancestors older than 13, we may not fare so well.
I don’t know. It is a hard question.
Of course, that would be unsustainable in the long term, but we might not have a long term to worry about anymore. The climate clock is ticking faster than the life extension one.