241 Essays on Infinite Lifespans   Marc Geddes example take the Internet.) In the case of the question of radi- cal human life extension, it is certainly reasonable to assume that should such a thing come about, it will cause problems. But all of these problems might be solvable. We need to exam- ine the philosophical reasons for wanting life extension. If we find that there are strong ethical reasons for life extension, this means we can be more confident that life extension would be on balance a good, regardless of the problems that might arise from it. While most people might accept that generally life is better than death, it has to be considered whether this is only true for a finite length of time. Perhaps life is better than death for a while, but then the postulate ceases to be true. Is there a time limit to the claim that life is better than death? It is hard to see why this should be so. If there is a time limit, where does it lie? If you think that living to 100 in good health is better than living to 50, why is 200 years of great health not better than 100? Why stop at 200? Why not 500? If you would be happy to live to 500, why not a million years, even forever? A philosophical objection to life extension is the worry that the longer we lived, the less we would value our time. After all, a basic economic principle is that the value of a resource tends to increase the scarcer it is. Would we somehow value each moment less if we lived longer? Another worry that people may have is that a desire for life extension is somehow selfish. Perhaps  budding  immortals  would  become  really  self-cen- tered and narcissistic? It shall now be argued that both of these philosophical objec- tions are without merit. It will be shown that not only does striving for a longer life increase the value of each moment, but it also increases the motivation for moral behavior.