Редактирование: Criticism of transhumanism (раздел)

== The view that there are more urgent priorities for human attention ==

In January 2015, Microsoft founder Bill Gates responded to the following question in [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2tzjp7/hi_reddit_im_bill_gates_and_im_back_for_my_third/co3q1lf an “Ask Me Anything” session held on Reddit]:

<blockquote>
What do you think about life-extending and immortality research?
</blockquote>

Putting into words a thought that is probably shared by large numbers of people, Gates replied:

<blockquote>
It seems pretty egocentric while we still have malaria and TB for rich people to fund things so they can live longer. It would be nice to live longer though I admit.
</blockquote>

However, transhumanists can reply that the same criticism could be raised against numerous medical research programmes – such as the programmes to cure cancer or heart disease. Fixing these diseases will extend lives too. But whilst people are still dying of malaria and TB (tuberculosis) – diseases that can be treated with relatively little expenditure – it might seem a displaced priority to put large amounts of money into looking for cures for cancer and heart disease. If the criterion is to save the most lives by spending a given amount of money, perhaps it would be best to terminate our cancer research initiatives, and instead purchase more mosquito nets, ensuring they are distributed to all areas still suffering from malaria. ''That argument shows that things are far from being black and white.''

Transhumanists can state that the single biggest killer on the planet is neither malaria nor TB: it’s aging. A successful anti-aging project could, therefore, have the biggest payback of all. Pursuing that goal is far from being egocentric. It’s not just the researchers (and those close to them) who will benefit from the programme. The benefits can reach out to everyone on the planet – including the people in the under-developed communities that are still suffering from outbreaks of malaria and TB. After all, people in these communities suffer from aging too.

The question of the financial effectiveness of different medical programmes hinges on two factors: the number of people who would benefit, and the costs to achieve these benefits. Someone who recognises the huge benefits of an anti-aging initiative could still, rationally, oppose that project, out of a belief that its costs will be vast and the timescales enormously extended.

If someone thinks it will be a very expensive project to bring about widespread healthy lifespan extension, and if they think success with that project lies centuries into the future, they'll be inclined to view rejuvenation researchers as eccentric (mad) and/or egocentric (selfish). However, if they concede the possibility that real progress could happen in the next few decades, for a cost-spend comparable to the amount of money that’s currently being spent on, say, cancer alone, their assessment will change. These critics may start to view transhumanists, not as eccentric, but as inspired; not as egocentric, but as heroic.