This is turning into thread soup. But for arguments sake; Surely someone with low-grade aging symptoms living an additional 30 years is going to be a greater burden on society than someone dying from complications 30 years earlier?
Are you aware that your argument also supports eugenics, sterlization of geneticaly sick people, etc?
I'd say that burden isn't as much for the whole society, as for the family of each person and for that person. And it should be the decision of person (and maybe its family, but there's controversy there) if that person wants to live longer causing this burden.
I don't think state or science should decide on such things. And it's better to at least have a choice.
>Are you aware that your argument also supports eugenics, sterlization of geneticaly sick people, etc?
No. That is hyperbole in the extreme. I'm not talking about killing people once they reach 100. Take it down a notch.
The article discusses gene therapy to change animal biology to artificially extend lifespan before the complications of age present themselves, ie. in the middle of the animals life, not after the animal has aged. I'm questioning the societal benefits of this to humans.
