Alright, agree to disagree I guess.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2001_Oct_1/ai_79052844/I don't really care about this aspect, it's academic. My argument stands, aging treatment is coming and will get the lion's share of taxpayer support as soon as people see it's a real prospect. The only thing I care to argue about are reasons for rejecting it after any overpopulation, because even if one does happen, it'll be put under control sooner than later. Voting for a govt that allows birth rate to balloon to the point that you and your kids will starve yourselves by allowing you and everyone else to have them like a population of locusts sarving itself by over-breeding makes zero sense to me.
As it is, the average person looks forward to the first 20 years of his life under parental/schooling bondage, the next 30 under work's, and everything after that under the bane of decrepitude. That people overall would mostly choose this regime instead of having kids much later once they're well off and have lived for themselves is unrealistic. That governments would allow e.g. destitute third world populations to eradicate their aging while still in excessive birth mode makes no sense at all either. As it is, Africa's still pretty much starved and left to tear itself apart, even though there's enough wealth in the rest of the world to lift them out of it. Why? "Because it's a poop hole". And all of a sudden the rest of the world will go in there and remove aging? I don't buy it. Not before they've had their fill and then some, first. That it's better to let dozens of millions of people die every year than give them the choice to decide for themselves, I don't buy either.
The party that tries to limit either will be committing political suicide.
The people that have both and use it irresponsibly commits suicide, so there's no interest in arguing it.
Considering how much life sucks now, why would you want to extend it indefinitely?
Ok, so your life sucks and you don't think 300 years would be enough to un-suck it. People probably said the same thing back when the average lifespan was 55. What could people possibly want with 15 extra years? We're "supposed to die" at 55! It's unimaginable (implying impossible) to live to 75! Suit yourself. Less for you, more for me. The way aging research is going, reliably living to 120 isn't going to be in decrepitude for the last 20-40 years as now. You won't get a 20 year boost in one go but more like once every few years so again, you don't have to live indefinitely. You only have to want one more year or three. No one's forced to keep living if their life sucks. If you manage to make it suck with (all things being equal) 20 more years of earning before a well deserved retirement. Even today people cling on to dear life even in decrepitude. That people on the whole would reject it, if you (e.g.) had your treatment once a year at 25 and from then age 1 year every 5, I just don't buy.
And similarly, if people can manage to screw the world up this much with a normal life span, how much worse off would we be if they had the time to get really good at it?
Another doomsday prediction with no argument to support it. Why would people who get to live longer, and potentially repeal aging indefinitely, spoil it for themselves? We're going to get better at clean industry, not worse. If you have figures to show that the per capita pollution is worse and harder to process today compared to early industrial times, let's see em. The paradigm would shift to clean (enough) living, one way or another. One country would be lucid and responsible enough to implement it, and the quality of life difference would start the domino effect. This is all speculating though. The only really interesting argument is the personal debate on why you'd choose or refuse to live that much longer.
Personally, I'm all for a 21 year grace period on retroactive birth control.
