Elf Sternberg

You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating bans of any kind. Please reread what I wrote.

And why, exactly, is it "arrogant" or expressing a philosophy of "everyone else be dammned" to try to stave off death as long as possible? Are you claiming that you are willing to die on statistical schedule, even if you know and can afford a means of avoiding it?

Again, you misread me. I'm saying the opposite: that it will be the arrogant, self-absorbed people who will most aggressively seek life-extension treatments, no matter what the consequences (if any) may be to everyone else. Because, you see, they are Very Important. More important than you.

You and I may want to live longer because there's so much more to see and do, so many languages we haven't learned, so many things we've started and not finished. But those like you and I and Elf are rather different. Those who are More Important Than You or I will deem such reasons as unworthy of access to Their Immortality Pills. And they will see any life-extension medication as a limited resource that is rightfully theirs, since They are Very Important. (Many of them see "marriage" as some sort of finite resource, after all.)

Or, to put it another way: There are those who would use a longer life to enrich their minds, share their experience with others, and try to make the world a better place. And, there are those who would use a longer life to do a few decades more damage, to impose their narrow views and bigotries onto others. (Would you really want Pat Robertson to live an extra 50 years?) Personally, I fear that there are far, far too few of the former and many more of the latter.


Nevertheless, banning technology won't do any good. Better to make people pay for the indirect as well as the direct consequences. (To whit: if you want to live to 150, don't expect the rest of us to foot the bill for it, and expect to be working until age 130.)