If infinite person-years possible, life extension is amoral.
What? Surely if infinite person-years are possible, it’s better for everyone to be immortal than only some, so life extension would be morally preferable, not morally neutral.
Also, why are we assuming the number of person-years lived is independent of the average lifespan? All he exhibited was an upper bound independent of the average lifespan, which is not at all the same thing.
I noticed an obvious fallacy:
Also, why are we assuming the number of person-years lived is independent of the average lifespan? All he exhibited was an upper bound independent of the average lifespan, which is not at all the same thing.