I just finished reading the John Harris speach and it's interesting that he brings up some of the troubling questions that I've thought about since joining this site. The idea of regulation of longevity. He emphasizes that longevity will inevitably happen probably as a result of some other intended treatement for disease. But assuming that we reach a significant age how should people control who gets to live longer? Obviously the well informed can easily take the necassary steps towards life extension. But is it unfair to others who care about life but who have not read up on longevity as much as people at this site?
Perhaps those who work the hardest most deserve it kind of thinking should apply? Or does it simply boil down to socioeconomic factors?
But should it be as simple as people who "want" it get it, or should they have a certain academic degree or status in say their community? What about exceedingly good people who adhere to community standards vs. less ethical types. Should there be a set limit on the age one gets to like Harris warned? If a person lives longer as a result of another procedure, than what? I don't think there should be "set limits", but ethicly it's a whole other issue and I get baffled. I know this topic has been discussed before and feel free to not answer questions that may have already been adressed as I have a tendency to do this sometimes. thanks
Edited by dfowler, 22 October 2003 - 06:27 PM.