[PavlovsCat]

Right. Because getting more joy from the "tapestry of life" (to quote Asimov) than from purely concentrating on one's own, means you're not only into eugenics, but you're also a snob about sentience and intelligence. Speak for yourself there, I personally don't see what intelligence or even health has to do with it. I don't think we can tell others what quality of life they have, even people in pain enjoy the few nice moments they have, and want to live.

But if you think this through, then everybody living forever would mean hardly any newborns, unless you propose we all cover everything in concrete 10 miles high until we figured the whole swarming over the galaxy thing out. OR not everybody would be immortal, and it would likely devolve into a two-tiered society straight out of dystopia; take your pick, but don't fucking blame me for you not thinking this through, and don't project the Frankenstein/Mengele possibilities of rushing into immortality headlong on me, either. Just nope.

[XorNot]

Well if you consider the effect progress has on birthrates (they drop - below replacement rate in fact) then it seems likely that we have effectively unlimited time to delay having children, it's likely birth rates would get even lower.

However, clinical immortality isn't absolute - an on average we would survive about 250 years between fatal accidents.

One of the conclusions I've always thought we can draw from this is that it's a decent explanation of the apparent paucity of life zipping around the galaxy: civilizations discover immortality before they get warp travel or whatever, their birthrate drops to near zero and the population stabilizes so you get no exponential growth across the stars, and so relatively few of them are actually out exploring.

[CmonDev]

Can you explain what you meant by "shot at life" and "diminishing returns"?

The solution is very clear: a personal choice between 2 kids or immortality for everyone.