[majormajor]

I think "those people would be assasinated more frequently than they are today" is a much more plausible outcome than "subject all of humanity to debilitating degenerative diseases."

At the country-level scale, that certainly sounds better than everyone aging and dying.

But what would individuals do on a smaller scale? Would this also incentive a lot more violent death among the rest of the population too, to change things up in a world where probably everyone is their own long-lived dictator of some little domain they carved out. Sure, this would be illegal, but you can only catch and prosecute so much crime; what if it becomes unmanageable? Would people create unnatural death to serve the role natural death causes today? I think so. But I think this could still be potentially "better" than today in some measure - you're comparatively healthy and pain-free before your demise, instead of a slow painful decades-long decline.

[spywaregorilla]

If you live forever, committing crimes seems like it carries a larger risk. Including a much higher risk of actually being murdered, in prison.

[Symmetry]

Oh the other hand, consigning yourself to death via assassinating a hated despot seems better, morally, than consigning everybody to death to make them die of old age.