Would you say that there is no need for better research for curing cancer just because new treatments will be super expensive, so only uber-rich zilionairs will benefit?
Probably not. (I hope)
Aging-caused diseases are really just some other type of health problems that leads to death. And curing such things is what medicine is doing. Heart bypass is a great example of helping to survive such problem.
And yes, new tech is usually expensive. And with adoption it became not only cheaper but better. Compare first mobile phones that was super expensive and could do nearly nothing to todays cheap smartphone that is more powerful than the computer that helped us to land on the Moon. If you care about health of poor and middle class people, you could rather help to accelerate the adoption, so more people can afford aging-reversal medicine sooner and not suffer from aging.
I think I see where you’re coming from, but I disagree that longevity treatments are equivalent to medical research that seeks to cure diseases.
The way I see it, everything dies eventually, even the stars above. I think it’s one thing to seek to ensure that everyone gets to reach their ‘natural’ end (i.e. old age) by addressing things like cancer or degenerative diseases, and a totally different thing to artificially extend a lifespan past those natural limits.
I don’t really have logic there to back it up, it’s just a different category in my head. The only time I really see this sort of stuff talked about is by loony wealthy people doing crazy shit like stealing their kid’s plasma in the name of living longer, which is probably coloring my perception unfairly of real longevity research.
Yeah, that’s understandable! The society teaches us from early age that there is a distinction between “diseases” and “aging”. So this distinction continues in our minds and we hardly ever question it. We learn it by imitation without deep understanding. In most cases it works well and serves as a usable and attention-saving shortcut. And it also may be responsible for prolonging old concepts that need a review.
Would you say that there is no need for better research for curing cancer just because new treatments will be super expensive, so only uber-rich zilionairs will benefit?
Probably not. (I hope)
Aging-caused diseases are really just some other type of health problems that leads to death. And curing such things is what medicine is doing. Heart bypass is a great example of helping to survive such problem.
And yes, new tech is usually expensive. And with adoption it became not only cheaper but better. Compare first mobile phones that was super expensive and could do nearly nothing to todays cheap smartphone that is more powerful than the computer that helped us to land on the Moon. If you care about health of poor and middle class people, you could rather help to accelerate the adoption, so more people can afford aging-reversal medicine sooner and not suffer from aging.
I think I see where you’re coming from, but I disagree that longevity treatments are equivalent to medical research that seeks to cure diseases.
The way I see it, everything dies eventually, even the stars above. I think it’s one thing to seek to ensure that everyone gets to reach their ‘natural’ end (i.e. old age) by addressing things like cancer or degenerative diseases, and a totally different thing to artificially extend a lifespan past those natural limits.
I don’t really have logic there to back it up, it’s just a different category in my head. The only time I really see this sort of stuff talked about is by loony wealthy people doing crazy shit like stealing their kid’s plasma in the name of living longer, which is probably coloring my perception unfairly of real longevity research.
Edit: fixed a typo and clarification
Yeah, that’s understandable! The society teaches us from early age that there is a distinction between “diseases” and “aging”. So this distinction continues in our minds and we hardly ever question it. We learn it by imitation without deep understanding. In most cases it works well and serves as a usable and attention-saving shortcut. And it also may be responsible for prolonging old concepts that need a review.