We posited a pill that halted degenerative aging processes, but not accidents, disease, or the consequences of self-abuse (like smoking or overeating). Some of the conclusions we came to were these:
- Given choice, most people over 40 would take a live-forever pill
- Restricted in availability, it would make a better reward for executives than money
- Every day on the pill should defer retirement age by a day.
- Pension providers, private and state, would need to reduce pensions to about one third to people using the pill.
- Old people would defer downsizing - leading to consequences for estate agents and builders.
- Children of people using the pill would be cheesed off by deferred expectations, and by delayed orphanhood.
- Workers in a live-forever society would get a raw deal, and might do better to emigrate - leaving an aging society to stew in its own juices.
Should society discuss the good life and the good death? If so should good death discussion be promoted by organisations like the U3A?
