Saying "you are unethical for doing this research" is very different from saying "I think there are serious problems with extending human life". One is a legitimate criticism and is vital to public debate. The other is name calling.
I mean, the essay makes the argument that allowing disparagement of gay people might be a necessary in order to allow the investigation of novel physics (which, wtf) - why not also make the argument that being called unethical might be a necessary cost to allow the investigation of life extension?
Is the idea worth perusing? Then you can probably stand to be called a name or two. Especially when you're also proposing allowing whole groups of people to be disparaged in the name of progress.
I don't really know what to make of your interpretation of Altman's statement. He was making the point that if a physicist has homophobic views, we should not dismiss their contributions to physics for that reason alone. Put another way, we should be tolerant of people, but not necessarily of their views.
> Sure. But does it really matter? Are we that sensitive?
Sensitivity isn't the issue: it's that calling someone names for reasons that are entirely speculative (and longer lifespan == ecological catastrophe is definitely that) is the domain of at least two other groups: grade-school children and the alt-right.
People tend to "tune" the details of a story to fit their argument. Especially when they feel aggrieved.
Also, the comment assumes a certain supremacy of science (or physics) over social concerns which everyone might not agree with. Physics is wonderful. But as far as improving people's lives, decrying and eliminating homophobia might also be a very important thing to do. So to say "I'm willing to sacrifice the well-being of gay people so physics can progress..." Not everyone may agree that the exchange is worth it. And that's valid.
"This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people..."