Neither. I’d accept that immortality is bad for the species as a whole but I still wouldn’t want people to die. So I would have to find (or fund) ways to change humanity so immortality doesn’t slow down progress etc.
It might be far easier to modify people to not want to live forever. For example, painlessly and predictably being switched off at, say, 100, without any signs of aging, seems far less unpalatable than the current process of dying slowly and unpredictable over decades.
Neither. I’d accept that immortality is bad for the species as a whole but I still wouldn’t want people to die. So I would have to find (or fund) ways to change humanity so immortality doesn’t slow down progress etc.
It might be far easier to modify people to not want to live forever. For example, painlessly and predictably being switched off at, say, 100, without any signs of aging, seems far less unpalatable than the current process of dying slowly and unpredictable over decades.
But not as palatable as not being switched off. Why are you trying to defend killing everyone?
Besides, if people have to be modified to enjoy the paradise you want to give them, then it isn’t a paradise, just a Brave New World dystopia.
Well, not necessarily, but if your response to wanting something is to stop wanting it… don’t do that to me!
I’d add that harm from immortality would have to be fairly big, and that society will have a variety of other improvements.