From Kevin Dewalt: "Person #1: 'Every day 100,000 people die a horrible death after a period of prolonged suffering. I want to stop this from happening.' Person#2: 'That may not be a good idea. It might lead to some unintended consequences.' ... I don't know about you, but the glaring next step in the debate between Persons #1 and #2 is as follows: Person#2 is on the hook to provide a very, very compelling reason to say why saving 100,000 lives a day is a bad idea. This brings me to the point of this post: Don't want to cure aging? The onus is on you - not us - to explain why. ... We may have an opportunity in the next several decades to develop treatments to end the suffering and death for 100,000 people EVERY DAY on this planet. If you think solving this problem is a bad idea, you had better come up with both some very compelling arguments and some facts to support your position. The onus is on you. And that, my friends, should end most of these discussions. So when you find yourself engaged into (yet another) one of these absurd discussions with someone who may be more eloquent, more educated, or better read than yourself, fear not because you have a safety net: The onus is on them to explain why we shouldn't reverse aging. It really is that simple."