> its impetus is clearly not really to make the world a better place or to solve serious problems affecting many millions (billions?) of people but to Are you

> its impetus is clearly not really to make the world a better place or to solve serious problems affecting many millions (billions?) of people but to Are you suggesting millions (billions?) of people don't have a problem with death/cancer/dementia? Because that's obviously incorrect! What do you think would happen if top research scientists lived longer and maintained their intellectual capabilities? What would happen if people stopped thinking so much in the short term, because they expected to face the consequences of the more distant future? What would happen to the resources that are currently being spent on diseases of ageing? Heart disease, cancer, dementia. How much wealth would be created by an increased number of experienced people working? Resource allocation to lifespan/healthspan doesn't seem zero-sum. Despite the temptation to create a dichotomy, there is none!