People are downvoting you because they disagree with you, and not on the quality of your argument. Which I disagree with, but it's valid.
The way I'm taking it is that you think humans should live a natural life span, rather than an unnatural one boosted by a treatment, as the risk could be upheaval to our already tenuous social situation due to rising old age and supporting that. However, if a life span is extended using this treatment by a factor of, lets say conservatively 15%, and helps offset some of the illness related to ageing (heart disease etc) then that's partially resolved the situation.
There's two ways it'd go, it'd be cheap enough for many people to afford, or pricy enough for the top 10% to afford. Either way society as a whole would adapt to the change, if it's cheap and everyone can afford it then the mandatory retirement age would be lifted. We'd all be a lot healthier and we'd be capable of working longer, so pensions would take a lot longer to kick in, as would dependence on the state.
If the top 10% get it we'll have a lot of rich, long living folk doing what rich, long living folk do. Making more money. Spending more money. Society will probably adapt around that again.
It has the potential to make life on this planet untenable, but imagine what humanity could achieve if people had another 20% of time to work in. The discoveries scientists could make knowing that 20 years from being 35 they've still got chance to do another 20 year project, so fully invested in solving the problems that would take 20 years without worry it's worthless.
(I also disagree with everyone suggesting you'd be a fan of eugenics as well, as that seems out of line with that fact you seem to be a proponent of naturalised life spans)
The way I'm taking it is that you think humans should live a natural life span, rather than an unnatural one boosted by a treatment, as the risk could be upheaval to our already tenuous social situation due to rising old age and supporting that. However, if a life span is extended using this treatment by a factor of, lets say conservatively 15%, and helps offset some of the illness related to ageing (heart disease etc) then that's partially resolved the situation.
There's two ways it'd go, it'd be cheap enough for many people to afford, or pricy enough for the top 10% to afford. Either way society as a whole would adapt to the change, if it's cheap and everyone can afford it then the mandatory retirement age would be lifted. We'd all be a lot healthier and we'd be capable of working longer, so pensions would take a lot longer to kick in, as would dependence on the state.
If the top 10% get it we'll have a lot of rich, long living folk doing what rich, long living folk do. Making more money. Spending more money. Society will probably adapt around that again.
It has the potential to make life on this planet untenable, but imagine what humanity could achieve if people had another 20% of time to work in. The discoveries scientists could make knowing that 20 years from being 35 they've still got chance to do another 20 year project, so fully invested in solving the problems that would take 20 years without worry it's worthless.
(I also disagree with everyone suggesting you'd be a fan of eugenics as well, as that seems out of line with that fact you seem to be a proponent of naturalised life spans)