View source for Popular objections against radical life extension and their analysis

=== Websites with good collections of objections analysis ===
* https://agingbiotech.info/objections/
* https://www.lifespan.io/aging-concerns/
* https://www.fightaging.org/ Ctrl+F "Objections answered"
* https://www.senescence.info/physical_immortality_myths.html

=== Overpopulation ===
Here we would collect one hundred rebuttals of overpopulation concerns =)<br/>
* https://hpluspedia.org/wiki/Life_extension_and_overpopulation_risk <br/>
* [https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2005/02/superlongevity-without-overpopulation-1/ "Superlongevity without overpopulation" on Fight Aging]
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 - Kurzgesagt about overpopulation <br/>
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXUkameA0r8 <br/>
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20161010172942/http://www.sciencevsdeath.com/overpopulation.html http://www.sciencevsdeath.com/overpopulation.html (archived)] - with some math<br/>
* "It's not about whether humanity shall invent radical life extension technologies or not. It will. The question is, would you among the first people to live thousands of years or you would be amongst the last generation which has no choice but to die at ~70-100 years"<br/>
* see TED lection of Hans Rosling which is among most popular on TED: [https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen "The best stats you've ever seen"].
* Growth of Earth population would be slow linear (~ +5billion/30years) instead of exponential if immortal people over 60 years old wouldn't bear new children ([[Proof of slow linear growth instead of exponential in case of no children for people over 60 years old|proof]])
* "Overpopulation is determined, from the first place, by number of births, not by mortality [https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2009.0977 (Gavrilov & Gavrilova, 2010)]. Even very short-lived creatures such as lemmings may suffer from overpopulation. In the formula of population there are exponential term -- birth rate -- and linear term, determined by lifespan. The input of exponential term overshadows input of linear. If the fight against overpopulation is important, we should limit reproduction, not the longevity" (taken from Alexey Turchin [https://turchin.livejournal.com/793151.html here], in russian).
* Thought experiment: Suppose we accidentally cured aging (covid vaccine unintended side effect). People start living A LOT longer. Do you think enforced killing of older people is the best solution to address your concern? [https://twitter.com/realNathanCheng/status/1692700668996227201?s=20].
* [https://verjuengungsforschung.de/ueberbevoelkerung-antwort https://verjuengungsforschung.de/ueberbevoelkerung-antwort] (in German)

=== Economic costs ===
"We show that a slowdown in aging that increases life expectancy by 1 year is worth US$38 trillion, and by 10 years, US$367 trillion"
<br/>https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00080-0
<br/>Nature, Sinclair and colleagues, 2021.
<br/>So funding the Moonshot Project to delay/end aging is a very profitable thing to do.

=== Everything is already optimised for fastest lifespan increase ===
Some people argue that world is already doing its best to achieve [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity_escape_velocity longevity escape velocity]. They tell that there is NIH with $40bln/year budget and all those multi-billion private companies R&D spending, that new prospective ideas can always be realized as startups in Silicon Valley and other places. They ask us about where from would we take those extra resources (funding, talented people, etc) that we want to add to life extension research.<br/>

One hundred rebuttals:
* This is why life extensionists always propose that an international commission of experts on scientific immortalism must be created, which should estimate which budget for research on radical life extension is optimal to optimise for the fastest lifespan increase. The importance of the problem is very large so we must demand a serious expert evaluation of this subject by the international scientific community. It should be analyzed in detail, openly and shall be updated continuosly. Meanwhile, there is no commission on this problem in the world, there are only some private opinions here and there. That's unacceptable and should be changed asap.
* [[Where to get X money on life extension research or promotion]] and [[Where to spend X money on life extension research or promotion]]
* https://m-batin.livejournal.com/40354.html (in russian)

=== Everyone already knows about life extension ideas ===
Some people tell us that there is no need in radical life extension promotion because most people (especially those in charge) already know about that.<br/>

Yes, and no.<br/>
Among politicians, scientists and all people there are our activists, supporters, neutrals, opponents and haters.<br/>
Opponents are our main problem. In every concrete organization there are concrete opponents who hamper the development of the topic. So technically yes, they have heard about our ideas. However they don't usually try to understand our position for a variety of reasons, perhaps most often because they don't want to swim against the current (as they see it), they don't think that their personal costs of going out of usual routine and trying to do something about proper handling of radical life extension agenda could change anything in the global perspective (especially as they are usually surrounded with similarly conservative people). Sometimes they begin to think up various different objections against radical life extension to justify their inactivity for themselves and for others. When people desperately try to defend what they think is good for them (just ignore the problem in our case) they do tend to believe anything no matter how illogical and contradictory it may sound. Once they expressed such opinion they are prone to defend it (changing mind is unfortunately considered by many as a sign of weakness and a last resort). Here is where the problem lies. So we need a critical mass of our supporters in all key organizations: scientific, political, in universities etc. to finally overcome this conservatism.

=== People don't want to live long ===
Even some of our supporters mistakenly think so. They base their opinion on some inaccurate surveys.<br/>
Common surveys mistakes leading to severe underestimation of percent of our supporters:<br/>
1) People often think that survey supposes long live in an old body. Like, would you want to live till 200 years having a health of say 100 year old person? Not many people wish that for themselves. However, it should be supposed (and our goal is) to live till 200+ years having good health and agile mind.<br/>
Here is what happens when survey counts for that effect: ''"We surveyed 1000 individuals (through “Ask Your Target Market,” http://aytm.com/) about how long they wished to live (to age 85, 120, 150, or indefinitely), under 3 scenarios: (1) sustained mental and physical youthfulness, (2) mental youthfulness only, (3) physical youthfulness only. While responses to the two partial youthfulness conditions recapitulated the results of previous surveys <...> i.e., most responders (65.3%) wished to live to age 85 only <...> When guaranteed mental and physical health, 797 of 1000 people wanted to live to 120 or longer, and 53.1% of the 797 desired unlimited life spans"''[https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2015.00353].
2) People often think that they are supposed to outlive their friends and relatives. Like, would you want to live till 200 if you outlive everyone you know? This again is invalid assumption. <br/>
3) People often think that survey asks about imaginary event that would not happen. So a psychological defense comes in and people just think "well we are happy, to be happy one shall not desire what one can't get"<br/>
etc.

=== Nothing depends on me so I better focus on healthy habits and earning money ===
(1) People often take part in many activities just for fun or pleasure or self-realization.
Participating in such a great project could be a very satisfactory thing. Especially as you meet other motivated interested clever people. 
Also, there are currently not as many activists in the field. You might be the missing link, or at least one hundredth of a missing link. It's also very honorable.<br/>
(2) Participating in radical life extension promotion is just ethically right choice. Nobody argues you should put all your resources into this. It's just morally right to participate in that activity from time to time. <br/>
(3) As about 60 million[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-per-year] people die every year, even bringing the defeat of aging just one second closer saves 60000000/365.25/24/3600= about 2 people lives. So even seemingly very small influence leads to the whole 2 people lives.

=== Other objections ===
[[What about the second law of thermodynamics?]]<br/>

There is argument that everybody should now be in AGI safety or in AGI development.<br/>
While both are crucially important, <br/>
1) radical life extension adds valuable points to AGI safety by promoting the value of human life<br/>
2) solving radical life extension removes the only crucial reason to want an early launch of AGI asap, thus potentially giving more time to solve alignment<br/>
3) for people with experience in aging research or promotion, it's reasonable to continue to do what they do unless it's clear that the AGI alignment problem is like 10x more important such that even considering the difference in experience it's more valuable to do AI safety.<br/>