[drcross]

You're choosing to pick the negatives but the potential upsides (even excluding personal desires) are monumentally massive.

How about not having 25% of the population walking around with an underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex at any one time, that need 30 years of education before they have the wisdom to do anything halfway useful. How about government policies that operate with a decades long view instead of just one election term. Global ID's would rise massively and decisions would have a far more balanced outlook.

[seagullriffic]

> choosing to pick the negatives

Yes of course there are positives. Don't worry, we have never let negative consequences hold back progress before.

But the blind optimism is staggering, and let's get philosophical: what's the ultimate good, objectively? (Subjectively obviously _I_ and _you_ think it's that we get to be around for longer.) But objectively, from a humanity standpoint, is it (1) the most people in existence, (2) the most people to ever have existed, (3) the most consciousness, (4) the most happiness? Etc.

If we start letting people live forever, over a long time, because of resources, fewer people will ultimately exist. We'll also have slower progress because old ideas will live longer. It's very hubristic to think we've peaked, and it's inevitable that the first live-forever generation will put the brakes on progress/change.

I'd say those downsides far outweigh the upsides you've proposed.

[bawolff]

I want reduced aging for humanitarian reasons, but i don't buy your reasoning

> 30 years of education before they have the wisdom to do anything halfway useful

If scidnce advances obe funeral at a time, this probably means science will advance a lot less.

> How about government policies that operate with a decades long view instead of just one election term

Seems unlikely to change. Election terms are 5 years and people already live a lot longer than that.

More importantly, i'd worry about an increase in concentrated power.