"When the traditional ethic of the sanctity of human life is proven indefensible at both the beginning and end of life, a new ethic will replace it. It will recognize that the concept of a person is distinct from that of a member of the species Homo sapiens, and that it is personhood, not species membership, that is most significant in determining when it is wrong to end a life. We will understand that even if the life of a human organism begins at conception, the life of a person—that is, at a minimum, a being with some level of self-awareness—does not begin so early. And we will respect the right of autonomous, competent people to choose when to live and when to die." - Peter Singer
Singer's Bio from the International Vegetarian Union (Barf Alert!)
""We will understand that even if the life of a human organism begins at conception, the life of a person—that is, at a minimum, a being with some level of self-awareness—does not begin so early. And we will respect the right of autonomous, competent people to choose when to live and when to die." - Peter Singer"
Pragmatically, as an individual judgment, that option has always been available; any attempt to justify the extension of its application to another's life simply because of expediency apart from order is more philosophical than a blueprint for social evolution.
We might see a move to engineering a higher quality of life for those facing advanced age as opposed to our current quantity of life approach, but even that will likely meet with considerable resistance from those who value tradition over advertised progress.
Too many of the population control crowd are missing the developing trend of families to have fewer children with each generation until now we have many developed countries growing more from immigration than birth addition.
Ultimately, there may come a time when pleasure is seen as the highest global goal but it will likely be farther in the future than a mere generation.