As my moniker suggests, I am a self-proclaimed immortality enthusiast. I feel that we have an ethical obligation to preserve human life, to extend it as far as possible, and to continually redefine just what “as far as possible” means.
The advent of “immortality” would bring new problems. Just remember that we’ll have to adjust our way of thinking.
We’d have to stop appointing people “for life” to positions like the supreme court.
Pension? What for? If you can remain youthful indefinitely, you can’t justify retiring at taxpayer expense; you keep working as long as you are able to or until you manage to become “independently wealthy”.
Any corporation that develops said drugs would have a vested interest in making them cheap. A thousand customers that pay two million dollars each isn’t nearly as profitable as a billion customers that pay seven hundred dollars each.
Overpopulation may be a problem, but I’ll cross my fingers and hope that a few centuries from now we’ll have arcologies and viable interstellar space travel (Even if it’s not FTL, a 400-year journey to another solar system isn’t out of the question when you live for tens of thousands of years).
It goes on an on. We’re so in the habit of thinking as mortals. For example, immortal Bill Gates wouldn’t necessarily have a series of 20-year-old trophy wives. He could have the one trophy wife who never ages past 20.
Disagree with me if you want, but please don’t bring your mortal sensibilities into this discussion.