jdmcnair t1_j3lwmxj wrote
The word disease, in the most literal way, just means dis-ease. So, like anything that constitutes a lack of ease, which could subjectively be a lot of things. So if aging is a dis-ease to you, you're welcome to call it that.
However, I think there are still great arguments to be made that it's just proper biological function. It's very important for the propagation of genes that we have our time on Earth and then get out of the way of our progeny. And, to your point, yes, that could change over time, but it just hasn't yet. Extreme life extension before we have a population-based framework for dealing with it would itself be a major social dis-ease. So the time may come when we can consider aging a proper disease, but I don't think we're there yet.
Sea-Cake7470 t1_j3m3vdh wrote
What if reproduction cease to exist...i mean is it important...??? Well yes in the present limitation of death and so that the species continues to live...but what if this limitation of death is solved ?? Do we still require reproduction??? I guess not....
Hotchillipeppa t1_j3pxcep wrote
If a rule was you had to be sterilized to receive anti aging treatment that would be a price I would pay.
jdmcnair t1_j3myp5m wrote
Right. Like I'm saying, things can and probably will change, but as of the current state of things I don't think it's a disease; it's a necessity.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3msf2m wrote
Sexual Reproduction was only necessary for evolution as a changing environment called for having variable offspring, but if the environment never changed we would duplicate instead. We are no longer under natural selection.
jdmcnair t1_j3mz8kx wrote
Sure. But we'll need to somehow restrict reproduction to be able to say that it's socially viable to live for a longer lifespan, lest we face uncontrollable population explosion.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3n8um7 wrote
That doesn’t necessarily seem like a problem of extreme difficulty, especially with the advent of AGI
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments