If you'd use it but with rules for which targets are suitable (possible examples: pre-sapient infants, people who are dying of something other than old age†, people you've never stolen from before), would you resort to a non-suitable target if you didn't have access to any suitable ones that day? How high a priority would you assign, when making lifestyle choices, to ensuring steady access to suitable targets?
(As for people with injuries or illnesses from which they will recover: I feel like ceasing to age should not prevent you from healing from such things (and that people dying of their injuries should not die faster if stolen from), so to be symmetrical let's say that accelerating someone's aging does not cause them to heal faster.)
If you wouldn't use it, how tempting would you find it?
Bonus question: what do you *predict* my answer will be? (I'll give my actual answer later.)
---
†In this thought experiment, lifeforce is fungible: stealing from an injured or sick human will not, in itself, damage you. (But remember that it does require physical contact, so exercise appropriate levels of caution regarding stealing from contagious targets.)
no subject
(As for people with injuries or illnesses from which they will recover: I feel like ceasing to age should not prevent you from healing from such things (and that people dying of their injuries should not die faster if stolen from), so to be symmetrical let's say that accelerating someone's aging does not cause them to heal faster.)
If you wouldn't use it, how tempting would you find it?
Bonus question: what do you *predict* my answer will be? (I'll give my actual answer later.)
---
†In this thought experiment, lifeforce is fungible: stealing from an injured or sick human will not, in itself, damage you. (But remember that it does require physical contact, so exercise appropriate levels of caution regarding stealing from contagious targets.)