There are not really that many people that I have a problem with, or dislike, and apparently you have to really go for it to get me annoyed with you. Bill McKibben has managed it, however.

Bill McKibben advoctates the eternal forcible prevention of technological progress that could save 100,000 people a day from dying horribly because he is worried about the possibility that saving them might adversely effect the kind of meaning he thinks their lives should have.

This is only one of the reasons that I have problems with Bill, but it is plenty.

Follow-up with Mick: And he uses all that green-language that Patrick Moore talks about the way that the environmental movement was hijacked by people like him.

If he just wanted to be "amish" that is perfectly fine, but he wants to force it on everyone.

2 Possibilities
1) He will stick to his guns and die relatively "soon".
2) He will avail himself of what we will merely think of as medicine by the time that rejuvenative medicine is available, I might be a bit snarky to him for a bit after that, if I met him.

In the event of wide deployment, I will definitively not do an I-told-you-so to my currently skeptical friends. Even the threat of that being in the back of the minds of my friends might make them not save themselves due to stubbornness, so I try to be careful about that.

Yeah, the thing is you have to actually communicate as carefully as possible now so you don't poison the community's ideas with false impressions. Bill's prolific nature is immensely dangerous because the polity he convinces (or merely confuses) with his really poor arguments could kill and/or make miserable a vast amount of living and unborn people.

This has already happened in some areas. Some central African nations were scared into refusing grain because of scare-mongering by well-fed environmentalists in the first world. They even (briefly) in a south-american country, stopped chlorinating water supplies and there were cholera and other water-borne disease breakouts there.

So this is far from theoretical, yet comparing these self-proclaimed planet-savers to other well-meaning monsters of history is unnaceptable in polite conversation let-alone public discourse.