kubofhromoslav

Well, I am using it multiple times. Similar as work toothbrush.

Yes, I generally more agree with that. Of course, the transition will be somewhat messy and some errors will be made. But generally I consider that it will follow more or less the path as other phisiopathologies, like cancer. In many countries, when someone gets cancer, he / she just gets the treatment. Despite it being freakingly expensive.

First versions of comprehensive treatments will most probably really expensive. And, same as with mobile phones, microwave ovens etc, the economy of scale, experience curve, generally laid down infrastructure and competition will drive costs down and availability will skyrocket. Also, I expect a bunch of those therapies to be eventually paid from public health care - prevention is better that a cure, and healthy people can more contribute to economy (and I hope that governments will value also other things about that, like life itself 🤗).

For such situations exists cryonics.

Unfun fact: For tobacco production, specifically drying the leaves, are quite often used wood from local rainforest. Not very enviro friendly. The slovakian forest protection organisation VLK was working on some outreach materials about this topic but haven’t finished them, but I have read the draft.

Also, smokers not just die because of smoking. They die in bad health that often needs years of treatment, which can be very expensive, but also polluting and diverging resources from productive work… I am not sure about the pluses and minuses and final calculation, but it is definitely not super clear.

So no, smoking is definitely not a good way to protect environment.