[Xplune13]

But we don't, do we? We wouldn't even know if we would have anything like today's world. So basing the possible scenario based on a hypothetical situation won't lead us anywhere. It is the same like "If I was the emperor of the world from the start, I would do this and this". My point is, how would you know what you would do when you haven't experienced it yourself? You're basing what you would do on your model of the world which was formed this way (present way) and not the "already emperor" way. So, you wouldn't know anything about how things would be in that hypothetical scenario.

I don't know what category I fall into right now, but I do understand that there might be potentially huge (bad) changes because of this that can stagnate the whole species rather than pushing forward. These possible scenarios are based on the real world, so they must be taken into account.

[madrox]

If you're saying the point is moot because it's hypothetical, I don't find that terribly convincing. We conduct thought experiments all the time.

If you're saying immortality shouldn't be allowed because it could lead to negative change, well...feel free to opt out should the option arrive. To paraphrase Cory Doctorow, no one need convince you...simply outlive you.

However, I don't think you would. I think you'd opt in and deal with the consequences later, since at least you'll be alive to experience them. We accept change all the time without considering consequences if the individual gain is strong enough.

[Xplune13]

Sorry for the late reply, but those thought experiments are exactly that... a thought experiment, most of them never come anywhere close to reality.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed, but that is a huge leap in one's understanding of the world. The possible effects of leap should be thoroughly studied before making those leaps, because it can backfire due to unseen consequences. Blindly following immortality as a way to live isn't a right way in my opinion.

> We accept change all the time without considering consequences if the individual gain is strong enough. Not all changes are equal and arguably immortality would be the biggest change humanity has ever faced, so I don't think this is a matter of "We'll see things afterwards", but of "let's first study the possible good and bad consequences of that and then decide if we want to do this or not". Advancement for the sake of advancement isn't a right way to go in my opinion, especially not when majority of changes will now affect ALL the people on Earth as we're all connected now.

On the topic of, will I opt in? It depends on the consequences. I would prefer not to be a tester of such thing, so I won't opt in if I'm in the trial batch or even first public batch. Feel free to do so if you want to, but try not to say "what you think others will do" based on an internet comment because that again is based on the mental model you have right now which is a narrow slice (same for everyone). Now, would I like to live a good life (90-100 years)? Yeah sure, but I really don't feel like I want to live beyond that. I might want to extend that life if I find some purpose later in life, but even after that I don't think I'll ever want to live forever.