It's usually implied that it would also increase the healthspan, rather than prolonging suffering.
Aging itself isn't something you die from, you die from age related deceases. By living longer (eg. slowing down aging) it usually means we somehow avoid and/slow down the occurrence of these deceases. On a high level this isn't something new (eg. working out, not smoking etc), but on a medicine level slowing/stopping/reversing aging isn't something that's very researched and have just recently started to get some kind of traction.
So you're correct in your thinking, we don't want to increase the duration of life without also increasing the duration of healthy life.
Edit: see my other comment with some resources you might find useful/informative.
> It's usually implied that it would also increase the healthspan, rather than prolonging suffering.
As I've stated multiple times now, this is only true if you consider suffering related to health, and I am not considering just health-related suffering. Please read my other comments before replying. I keep getting replies only talking about health in the very physical and medical sense. When I say "quality of life", I mean it in the holistic sense. For example, if someone who is poor, disenfranchised, has no retirement, lives paycheck to paycheck, lives in heavy pollution both of air and water, etc., is living longer really on top of their list?
And of course, no one has addressed the societal issues that longevity creates.
> Aging itself isn't something you die from, you die from age related deceases.
That's kind of pointless semantics, but anyway, it doesn't address anything I've said.
If we go back to the original query: "what are you surprised isn't being work on?", then is it really surprising longevity is a niche thing when there's so much else to work on (i.e., so much going wrong)? If someone really thinks longevity is interesting enough, then I'd like to see the political, societal, and environmental, not just the medical, arguments and solutions that would need to come along with it to make it a net positive.
Wanting longevity seems to be a rather privileged position.
The surprise comes from all the resources we put on solving deceases that are caused by aging. Why not solve the root cause? That's where I and many others are surprised.
> For example, if someone who is poor, disenfranchised, has no retirement, lives paycheck to paycheck, lives in heavy pollution both of air and water, etc., is living longer really on top of their list?
Maybe, maybe not. Most people don't want to die even if they don't live in the western world. Some of the things mentioned here (eg. no retirement, polluted air) wouldn't be as big of a problem if aging was solved since they would be healthier.
I would agree most people in developing countries wouldn't put longevity on top of their list (seems like people in the richer countries doesn't do that either) but the thing is we can work on multiple problems at the same time. People generally aren't suggesting we take money from aiding the poor to instead focus more on solving biological aging. It's rather using resources allocated to fighting age related deceases one by one, to instead fight aging (which seem to be the root cause) and/or adding _more_ resources to the pool of doing good in the world.
Aging itself isn't something you die from, you die from age related deceases. By living longer (eg. slowing down aging) it usually means we somehow avoid and/slow down the occurrence of these deceases. On a high level this isn't something new (eg. working out, not smoking etc), but on a medicine level slowing/stopping/reversing aging isn't something that's very researched and have just recently started to get some kind of traction.
So you're correct in your thinking, we don't want to increase the duration of life without also increasing the duration of healthy life.
Edit: see my other comment with some resources you might find useful/informative.