Wherever there is a problem, there is a solution, and it seems that the primary problem is overpopulation, right? Well...
While people will not die of aging, they will be at the mercy of falling pianos, diseases, and other such mishaps, thus, even if nobody ages, people will keep on dying. Now, if people are dying, then the problem is reducing the birthrate, which can effectively be done by the state, which would issue permission to procreate only when there is space in the society - and so, in order to live forever, one would have to be temporarily rendered sterile. If you live for an indefinitely long time, eventually a time will come for your turn to produce a child, so, in essence, what we'll do is simply slow down the turnover. Why should we do it? Because death (and consequent turnover ) is necessary for evolution, death is part of our life due to the anthropic principle (i.e. if it wasn't, evolution would not take place, and we would be here to observe it). Since slowing down evolution is not a big deal, I see no reason why a state-controlled program for indefinite prolonging of life would not be a good idea.
Now on to the next point, suppose that we do live indefinitely, then what? Simple, after the world stabilizes and assuming GDP is high enough to do so, we'll end up with people turning to arts and self-expression. If I had the time, after I became a sky-diving instructor, I'd master the trombone, and spend my time jazz-bar-hopping jamming with random musicians... ah... what a life...
Slashdot Mirror
While people will not die of aging, they will be at the mercy of falling pianos, diseases, and other such mishaps, thus, even if nobody ages, people will keep on dying. Now, if people are dying, then the problem is reducing the birthrate, which can effectively be done by the state, which would issue permission to procreate only when there is space in the society - and so, in order to live forever, one would have to be temporarily rendered sterile. If you live for an indefinitely long time, eventually a time will come for your turn to produce a child, so, in essence, what we'll do is simply slow down the turnover. Why should we do it? Because death (and consequent turnover ) is necessary for evolution, death is part of our life due to the anthropic principle (i.e. if it wasn't, evolution would not take place, and we would be here to observe it). Since slowing down evolution is not a big deal, I see no reason why a state-controlled program for indefinite prolonging of life would not be a good idea.
Now on to the next point, suppose that we do live indefinitely, then what? Simple, after the world stabilizes and assuming GDP is high enough to do so, we'll end up with people turning to arts and self-expression. If I had the time, after I became a sky-diving instructor, I'd master the trombone, and spend my time jazz-bar-hopping jamming with random musicians... ah... what a life...