An argument that research into curing mortality is somehow immoral based on overpopulation or limited resources directly suggests that it's better for people to die than for us to have those problems. I seriously doubt that was the intent of the argument, but that's the implication of such an argument. If my response sounded absurd, it's because making the argument was absurd to begin with.
Now, if someone wants to look into those other problems too, that's fine; in particular, we do need research into solutions for other causes of suffering, not just mortality, and resource shortage is a fine place to start. But complaining about research into mortality is ridiculous. Doubly so because such an argument assumes fungibility of research resources: the people doing that research are not arbitrarily repurposable towards other issues.
The rest of your post seems like an unrelated red herring combined with a vague attack.
I didn't say it was immoral (my comment has generated a lot of straw men). I just think it creates other problems that no one seems to consider. I personally would rather live to 75 and be fairly healthy for most to that, than live to 100 and be in poor health for a significant part of that.
Now, if someone wants to look into those other problems too, that's fine; in particular, we do need research into solutions for other causes of suffering, not just mortality, and resource shortage is a fine place to start. But complaining about research into mortality is ridiculous. Doubly so because such an argument assumes fungibility of research resources: the people doing that research are not arbitrarily repurposable towards other issues.
The rest of your post seems like an unrelated red herring combined with a vague attack.