I use modern medicine and modern technology to expand my lifespan, but there is a difference between 20 years and 80-100 years.
Assuming some breakthrough that makes age a number, and I can stay as sharp and healthy as I am now, then I still have an issue with sustainability. The earth has a certain carrying capacity, and keeping everyone alive for an indefinite amount of time is not sustainable for long.
Each generation gets its chance to run its course and the world evolves from it. Imagine if 75% of people from 1860 were still around - what is their view? How do they keep up with the changing times? Did they allow the world to come as far as it has? Or did the people stay in power indefinitely and keep things the way they were?
Aging, retirement, and death provide a natural opportunity for change that wouldn’t be there if you had people with 90 years of investment and connections making decisions and you wanted to make a change. Things would be a lot bloodier.
I don’t romanticize the fact I’m going to die. But I do think memento mori provides clarity and focus to what I’m doing.
I see the individual appeal of living indefinitely and keeping those you love alive indefinitely. But that is “in today’s world that I enjoy as I know it, given my current socio-economic status”. So would people allow that to change? What if it made them worse off?
In terms of carrying capacity, I think we are far from physical limits for Earth. We need technological solutions - imagine how many humans we could have with vertical farming and fusion power. Colonizing space? Technology is something we can obtain. You imagine the masses from 1860 holding us back, but what if every scientist from 1860 on was still with us and building on a century plus of experience?
Regarding social progress - first, it is the modern social views we would be extending and entrenching, not antiquated ones. We are extending the lifespan of Trump voters, not slavers or Jim Crow enthusiasts.
Perhaps you are suggesting that our social views, in a hundred years, will seem as reprehensible as those of a hundred years past seem to us. However, there is no guarantee which way social views will progress. Perhaps, without amortals from our time future societies would have worse social views.
Second, I suspect the reason the elderly tend to be more close minded is related to their circumstances. Their minds aren't as plastic, their bodies not as hale, they can't get out to work and be a part of society, etc. If, instead, their bodies were hearty and their minds agile, they might be as amenable to influence as anyone else. We may find the social views of a healthy two hundred year old advance as steadily as society's.
Regardless, I wouldn't kill people or prefer they die just because they have regressive social views. We should convince them if possible or just live with them if not.
There are certainly problems that may arise from extending lifespan. I believe we can solve them.
Assuming some breakthrough that makes age a number, and I can stay as sharp and healthy as I am now, then I still have an issue with sustainability. The earth has a certain carrying capacity, and keeping everyone alive for an indefinite amount of time is not sustainable for long.
Each generation gets its chance to run its course and the world evolves from it. Imagine if 75% of people from 1860 were still around - what is their view? How do they keep up with the changing times? Did they allow the world to come as far as it has? Or did the people stay in power indefinitely and keep things the way they were?
Aging, retirement, and death provide a natural opportunity for change that wouldn’t be there if you had people with 90 years of investment and connections making decisions and you wanted to make a change. Things would be a lot bloodier.
I don’t romanticize the fact I’m going to die. But I do think memento mori provides clarity and focus to what I’m doing.
I see the individual appeal of living indefinitely and keeping those you love alive indefinitely. But that is “in today’s world that I enjoy as I know it, given my current socio-economic status”. So would people allow that to change? What if it made them worse off?