I was going to go with the opposite: I would want to be able to have children in my elder years.
Now yer talkin’, Sam. An excellent post with plenty of points worth further discussion. As to the above quote, you’ve nailed it right down. Clearly, if life-extending treatments become available, they will not be considered elective. They would be considered more important than anything else that currently exists. Will insurance pay? It doesn’t matter. de Grey addresses this issue on his website.
Yes, indeed. As I pointed out in a previous post in this thread, we have extended human lifespan by about 3-4 times since we first gathered around a fire. No one is complaining about that, except for still having to die, and having the final decades be an expensive, vile, and miserable process of slow degradation.
Exactly what de Grey says. Good thinking! This is exactly what the issue boils down to. No one would turn down some more years of healthy life. No one.
Your straightforward summary of the matters speaks for itself. Way to go!
And those bankrupting themselves are doing so for 5 or 10 years more of lousy life. If those could be healthy years, then what?
Yes, imagine it. We can imagine the negative outcomes, and the positive ones. Is there any way that we won’t try to find out the outcome of a lifespan of hundreds or thousands of years? No. If we can do it, we’ll do it, and see what happens. Let those who would decline on the offer decline. They won’t, of course, when push comes to shove.
There’s no reason to think that you couldn’t have kids throughout your lifetime, one way or another.
An interesting sort of prooposal, whether you are serious or not. Questions of human exonomics will certainly have to be revised.