> There are a thousand downsides and challenges that come with a solution to old age, but that doesn't mean leaving aging in place is better.
Sure, not by default, but on the merits of those downside, you probably should conclude that it is in fact better to have people age. Especially if it serves to only be available to the rich and powerful. That's just a shortcut to utter dystopia.
I think most people would think that a poor person under the rule of a despotic king is still better off alive than dead. So how come that, if the king were to live for hundreds of years, that poor person would suddenly be better off dead?
I feel this line of reasoning boils down to, "if we can't have perfect equality, everyone should die".
You're assuming that the poor person gets immortality too. That's generous. Or even if they do, that they live in conditions that don't result in them dying from unnatural causes. Or just kill themselves because life is awful.
