I have some points to make about this. First, we shouldn't talk about immortality, we should use the term "biological immortality". Scientifically speaking, absolute immortality is impossible. Some may even speculate about surviving the universe my moving into an alternate universe - whose existence is BTW unproven - but that's such a wild shot that it seems childish to even mention it. I think we should actually avoid making such speculations, because it would just turn people away from the anti-aging movement, convincing them that we are a bunch of lunatics. Biological immortality is instead theoretically possible, even if at present we don't know if it will ever be achieved. The argument that aging is inevitable because of the Laws of Thermodynamics is flawed, because living organisms aren't thermodynamically closed systems. If we advanced biotechnology to a level where people could be permanently kept at the biological state of a 25-30 yo, we can also assume that we would have the knowledge to defeat all known diseases, including mental ones, and to improve our well-being. This means that we would likely be able to tackle most of human suffering. Still, people could die of accident, violent death or natural disasters, even if we were able to minimize them to a level unthinkable today. Given enough time, such events will at some point occur. But the fact that such lethal events would be relegated to an undefined future, that could be prolonged by taking precautionary steps, makes this idea acceptable to me.
Another point that needs to be made is that biological immortality or extreme life extension will not be achieved at once, as most of you certainly agree. That should put at rest most of the worries about social and economical upheavals. Let's suppose, for instance, that on 10 years we have a drug that will allow people to live until 150-200, depending on the age when they start taking it. When the drug comes out, however, there would be no guarantee that it works. We will have to wait at least until a significant number of people using the drug starts living well over 100, which would take several decades after the drug release. Of course, it can be expected that the media would talk a lot about this new drug, and that a number of people would start taking it as soon as it becomes available. Still, at least at the beginning, they would only be a relatively small minority.There would be a lot of skepticism, and many people would not be interested, at least until they become old. After all, most people don't even care to take the basic steps to maximize their health, let alone extend their longevity. This without considering those who oppose life extension as a matter of principle. When we'll finally have the evidence of people living over 120, or centenarians performing as much younger people after taking that drug, there will surely be a switch in public opinion, but by then several decades will be gone. Society will have the time to adapt. Furthermore, people of retirement age will still be able to work, lessening the problem of pensions. I think it would actually be a blessing for developed countries, where birth rate has fallen to levels catastrophically low.
LongeCity
