> In fact maybe we should euthanize all scientists at age 50 - or earlier. Right?
I understand you're trying to perform reductio ad absurdum but I would like to point out that the proposition is less absurd than you make out.
E.g. if Ancel Keys died at 50 then health risks of sugar consumption would have been accepted by the scientific community decades earlier saving tens of millions of lives. I certainly don't suggest to euthanize anyone however I'm glad he died eventually. In fact I'm glad everyone dies eventually me included.
So you advocate a traditional, orderly, socially acceptable form of killing everybody, by maintaining traditional death against possible ways to overcome it.
It's a bit far, but I think countries and societies will be split around this question if or when such a technology comes. You'll definitely find a place to opt out, I would stick/move to a country where immortality is illegal.
Now if my world model is correct, the immortal societies will see a decline akin to the Byzantine empire (which never actually declined, just progressed slower than it's neighbors). As the result they will either succumb and integrate into their mortal counterparts or perhaps continue existing like some sort of native tribal reservations. If I'm wrong, the inverse will happen.
In the end the more effective and stable socioeconomic model wins because it's the only thing that matters in the long run. It may take a while to reach the equilibrium though.
I understand you're trying to perform reductio ad absurdum but I would like to point out that the proposition is less absurd than you make out.
E.g. if Ancel Keys died at 50 then health risks of sugar consumption would have been accepted by the scientific community decades earlier saving tens of millions of lives. I certainly don't suggest to euthanize anyone however I'm glad he died eventually. In fact I'm glad everyone dies eventually me included.