Most of your post is not arguments against curing death.
People being risk-averse has nothing to do with anti-aging research and everything to do with individuals not wanting to die...which has always been true (and becomes more true as life expectancy rises and the “average life” becomes more valuable). The same is true for “we should risk more lives for science”.
I agree that people adapt OK to death, but I think you’re poking a strawman; the reason death is bad is because it kills you, not because it makes your friends sad.
I think “death increases diversity” is a good argument. On the other hand, most people who present that argument are thrilled that life expectancy has increased to ~70 from ~30 in ancient history. Why stop at 70?
note: “life expectancy used to be ~30” is a common misconception (it’s being skewed by infant mortality) (life expectancy has gone up a lot, just not that much)
(as far as i know. i’ve been told that it’s a common misconception that this is a common misconception, but they refused to cite sources)
the reason death is bad is because it kills you, not because it makes your friends sad.
While I agree with the spirit of this sentiment, I think we should be a bit careful with blanket statements; the fact that my death would make my friends and family sad is definitely an aspect of what makes it bad. My death would still be bad without that aspect, but not quite as bad.
Most of your post is not arguments against curing death.
People being risk-averse has nothing to do with anti-aging research and everything to do with individuals not wanting to die...which has always been true (and becomes more true as life expectancy rises and the “average life” becomes more valuable). The same is true for “we should risk more lives for science”.
I agree that people adapt OK to death, but I think you’re poking a strawman; the reason death is bad is because it kills you, not because it makes your friends sad.
I think “death increases diversity” is a good argument. On the other hand, most people who present that argument are thrilled that life expectancy has increased to ~70 from ~30 in ancient history. Why stop at 70?
note: “life expectancy used to be ~30” is a common misconception (it’s being skewed by infant mortality) (life expectancy has gone up a lot, just not that much)
(as far as i know. i’ve been told that it’s a common misconception that this is a common misconception, but they refused to cite sources)
It isn’t. I’m well for curing death. And postponing senescence.
But not without considering the trade-offs.
While I agree with the spirit of this sentiment, I think we should be a bit careful with blanket statements; the fact that my death would make my friends and family sad is definitely an aspect of what makes it bad. My death would still be bad without that aspect, but not quite as bad.