Would
dramatically increasing healthy human life spans lead to a
Malthusian Hell of overpopulation and resource scarcity? Objectors
to life extension research believe it would be immoral to make it
possible for people to live a lot longer. But is that so?
Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey parses the
arguments of two philosophers who conclude on different grounds
that pursuing radical life extension is the moral thing to do.
Reason Magazine
New at Reason: Ronald Bailey on the Malthusian Consequences of Radical Life Extension
Most Popular Stories
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245