Via Fight Aging and Stephen Malcolm Anderson, an interesting interchange at Dean's World regarding life and its true worth. Read the whole thing. Samples follow, to tempt you over...

I make no secret that I side with the anti-aging forces. Senescence is a horrible killer, a disease that should be fought with every available weapon.

Every time I hear an argument about why humans should not artificially extend the number of years wherein we live robust, healthy, active lives, I get creeped out...

But even worse in my view are creepy, death-embracing arguments like, "the world has too many people" or "all that is good in humanity comes from our mortality," which are morally bankrupt so far as I can see.

Thank you. Thank you. The choir likes what it's hearing. On the other hand, it seems there's a contrarian in every crowd. Jesse Hill had this to say...

While I agree that the "God is against it" argument is exceedingly irrational, I would caution against throwing away our mortality on a whim. Isn't "Death is bad" just as simplistic?...a never-ending mortal life would be akin to being locked in Purgatory forever, never ascending to whatever life lies beyond death.

And what about our mortality? Do you really think nothing of value comes from it?...If we did not die would our Great Thinkers really be moved to paint, write, sculpt, or compose their works? I'm skeptical...

I'm not saying, of course, that we should just die. I'm just saying that there ARE some real negative aspects that I don't think should be overlooked.

Mr. Esmay responds to these timorous thoughts with a wee, well earned fisking of marvelous clarity and vigor, which I'll get to in a bit. But first, a few thoughts of my own.

I've noticed that some people simply cannot accept any new enterprise, regardless of its value, without first carping about it. I don't know why this is so. Perhaps they think it makes them sound wiser, or more forethoughtful, or even more moral than the rest of us. An example comes to mind immediately...

Or perhaps they're just honestly afraid. Change, any change, is perceived as a threat. It's kind of sad, really.

So what is it, exactly, that Mr. Hill is trying to accomplish here? What's his freaking point?

I'm just saying that there ARE some real negative aspects that I don't think should be overlooked.

Great. That seems innocuous enough, though also somewhat pointless. What simple, concrete actions does he advocate? What should we actually do?

I would simply like to see you speak a little of the sorts of problems that would be associated with an immortal human race. I can assure you there are many, and pointing them out doesn't make any of us have a "sick view of humanity" I don't think. We're just being pragmatic.

So the problem lies in not thinking things through. We have to nail down all the possible show stoppers before we can decently indulge in the luxury of optimism.

We're talking about fundamentally altering the human condition to a degree which has never been attempted before.

Does that mean we absolutely should not do it? Of course not. But it does mean we should put a great deal of thought into what the ramifications -- both positive AND negative -- would be.

Why? I mean, honestly, why? If we're going to do it anyway, what do we gain by sitting around and pondering the reasons not to do it? Yeah sure, problems will arise. Nobody is saying that they won't. So what? That life requires effort is more truism than revelation. What's that old saying? "Dying is easy. It's the living that's hard."

Too right. And living longer will be harder, but still worth the trouble.

While you might disagree with my specific 'negatives' I would ask that you concede that they do exist. Further, I'd like to you to explore them. Right now you sound entirely too enthusiastic...

Okay, they exist. Happy now? There will be negatives. But I don't think Mr. Esmay sounds especially "enthusiastic" here. Exasperated would seem to capture it more accurately.

And it seems entirely too presumptuous on the part of Mr. Hill to say that Mr. Esmay's post is not addressing the correct issues. I mean, really, is the man's writing talent on retainer to Jesse Hill? Must his writing conform in all particulars to Mr. Hill's expectations? I'm sorely tempted to quote Al Swearengen.

I'm not asking to stall our efforts. I think we're a long ways off from 'immortality' anyway. Will we achieve it in my lifetime? I sure hope so!

My objection is to jumping in with both feet without realizing the sort of consequences it will bring about. This event -- if achieved -- will reshape human thinking. Will the end result be a better world? We can certainly hope so, but it certainly isn't guaranteed.

And, ultimately, that's my point: not that we shouldn't do it, but that in doing it we have to accept that some bad things might come as a result. We have to be weight the costs with the benefits.

So we should look before we leap. What does that translate into in terms of specifiable action on our part? We should think about it? Really, really hard? Well, okay then! Cue the Jeopardy music!

There...I've thought about it. Really, really hard. And what useful thing has been accomplished? Pretty near to nothing.

Here's Mr. Esmays trenchant rejoinder to the semantic nullity of Mr. Hill's thoughts...

Jesse, excuse me for the rudeness of a "fisking" style response, but you need to be fisked here:

Isn't "Death is bad" just as simplistic?

No.

Thus, a never-ending mortal life would be akin to being locked in Purgatory forever, never ascending to whatever life lies beyond death.

Go ahead and commit suicide whenever you're ready then.

And what about our mortality? Do you really think nothing of value comes from it?

Yes, I really think nothing of value comes from it whatsoever.

Being among the only animals that have a sense of death, I would say that it has spurred some of our greatest artistic works.

Except for great works of tragedy--and tragedy will be with us always--I can't think of a single one.

If we did not die would our Great Thinkers really be moved to paint, write, sculpt, or compose their works? I'm skeptical.

Your admiration for death is your business. I'm more than skeptical of the "creativity comes from our fear of death" notion, however. I find it sick and perverted.

I can quite assure you that I'd be quite happy to continue writing for the next 500 years if given the chance. I have little doubt that Picasso or Rembrandt or Van Gogh or Shakespeare or Frank Lloyd Wright or Mozart or Beethoven or Bach or Einstein would have continued creating for centuries if they could have. And if they decided after a while to put their art away and do something else, would that be anybody's business but theirs?

What kind of sick view of humanity do you have to have to believe that death is what motivates people to creativity?

If we become essentially immortal than the 'first generation' of immortals would become the ad hoc rulers of society.

And you base this bizarre view on what? The fact that there are no members of Congress under 60 and no Presidents elected under the age of 70? That all corporate CEOs are at least 80 years old?

Has it occurred to you that most people choose to retire not because they're old and frail, but because they get tired of what they're doing and decide they'd rather do something else? Or that the easy solution to your fantasy of "gerontocacy," if it comes to that, is called democracy?

Our birth rate would slow down considerably...

News flash: it already has. Indeed, if we don't do something to extend human lifespan soon, the world population will begin imploding by 2050 or so.

I mean, if I was going to live for 500+ years I would start investing my money wisely and by the time I was, say, 200 I would almost certainly be a millionaire. What of the poor sap who is born then?

Tell him to start investing.

Once more with feeling. Thank you.