Charles N. W. Keckler, a litigator and former law professor of Washington, D.C., tries to develop an argument for conservatives to support maximum life extension in TCS Daily. His main trick is to tell “revolutionary” change from “good, innovative” change, former opposed, later supported by conservatives.
“It is false that extending lifespan blunts innovation, except, perhaps, that of the “paradigm-shifting” sort. Conservatives are generally ambiguous about that sort of change, anyway. Therefore, I see no inconsistency in conservatives also seeking to preserve the true embodiments of the past, the repositories of wisdom and experience we ourselves will become if fate — and the federal government — let us.”