If longer lived people tend to create more spaces to expand into in an infinite universe, and this results in reproduction at a normal or higher rate, that would indicate that longer lived people are more moral, since the disutility of the long lived people dying would be (relatively) absent from the equation.
If there is a point of diminishing returns on the creation of new people—perhaps having a trillion lives is less than 1000 times as valuable (including in the sense of “justice”) as having a billion lives in existence at a given time—life extension could be more efficient at producing valuable life years and hence more moral.
Life might grow less worth living over time (Note: excluded for sake of argument from your prezi), but it might also grow more worth living over time. These are not mutually exclusive: an evil dictator might produce more negative utility by being in power for a long time whereas a scientist or diplomat might produce larger amounts of positive utility by living longer. There could be internalized examples of these as well—a person whose pain grows with each passing year and has to live with the memories thereof, or a person who falls more in love with their spouse or some such thing over time.
However I tend to think there would be selection effects in favor of the positive cases and against the negative ones—suicide and assassination, for example—so I don’t much fear the negative cases being the long term trend. Rather I think longer lived people (all else equal, including health) produce more positive utility per unit of time than shorter lived ones.
If longer lived people tend to create more spaces to expand into in an infinite universe, and this results in reproduction at a normal or higher rate, that would indicate that longer lived people are more moral, since the disutility of the long lived people dying would be (relatively) absent from the equation.
If there is a point of diminishing returns on the creation of new people—perhaps having a trillion lives is less than 1000 times as valuable (including in the sense of “justice”) as having a billion lives in existence at a given time—life extension could be more efficient at producing valuable life years and hence more moral.
Life might grow less worth living over time (Note: excluded for sake of argument from your prezi), but it might also grow more worth living over time. These are not mutually exclusive: an evil dictator might produce more negative utility by being in power for a long time whereas a scientist or diplomat might produce larger amounts of positive utility by living longer. There could be internalized examples of these as well—a person whose pain grows with each passing year and has to live with the memories thereof, or a person who falls more in love with their spouse or some such thing over time.
However I tend to think there would be selection effects in favor of the positive cases and against the negative ones—suicide and assassination, for example—so I don’t much fear the negative cases being the long term trend. Rather I think longer lived people (all else equal, including health) produce more positive utility per unit of time than shorter lived ones.