Computer analogies aside, I think that the longevity community (perhaps justifiably) is ignoring some really critical aspects of aging and dying.
In the same way as relatively new diseases such as cancer and heart disease have confounded the progress of medicine upon finally mastering the treatment/prevention of infectious disease, what new maladies await us when we "defeat" those and start living well past 100? What does the psychological health of a 100++ year old even look like? Will we _really_ want to live that long, and if so, who dies to make room for the living?
> Then we'll have to choose: do we want newborn babies or really old people?
That's the interesting question isn't it? And _who_ gets the privilege to answer?
I have no idea to what extent we'll defeat aging and extend life. However, it is reasonable to expect that we'll at least manage to go far enough that concerns about population will enter the picture as well as much more strange problems that have never existed but which should be considered.
Since when are cancer and heart disease relatively new? They've been around for as long as people have, just most people didn't live long enough to get them for other reasons.
By "new" I mean that only relatively recently in human history (in the last ~100 years) have people been able to live long enough that these become health problems of concern. Before the 20th century, most folks just got sick as a result of an infection of some kind and died.
All I am saying is that there will be other new problems that are uncovered as we continue to extend human life-span.
In the same way as relatively new diseases such as cancer and heart disease have confounded the progress of medicine upon finally mastering the treatment/prevention of infectious disease, what new maladies await us when we "defeat" those and start living well past 100? What does the psychological health of a 100++ year old even look like? Will we _really_ want to live that long, and if so, who dies to make room for the living?