Quote Originally Posted by Esaman View Post
Human like all species work not by developing immortality but by rebooting, reshuffling, readjusting the system with generations. Immortality necessarily stops that. I am not performing naturalistic fallacy in saying that things should be how they are. I am say they should be how they are because how they are is better than the alternative. Both practically and spiritually. Practically, regeneration system of a genepool is both robust and flexible, resistant to damage, fatal error and degeneration unlike system of immortal individual.
Well, there's no reason to suspect we won't be able to tweak this system ourselves thru genomic engineering. Hence generational refreshes will no longer be necessary.

Ohh and the small difference that human specie/genepool is significantly singular unified system striving for immortality. Immortal man would be immortal system on to itself not having invested interest in others except to their nonexistence for reduction of risks. If it is "homo homini lupus" now.... How many legitimately independet intelligent species/beings do you want? Billions? The current somewhat singular biological existence of the dangerous entity is optimal for peace.
Evolutionary processes are driven by novelty and diversity—i.e., the trying of many different things against pressures of natural selection. So if anything, this will be beneficial for the species. Whereas uniformity in a species tends to be suboptimal.

Philosophically/spiritually the genepool/sexual reproduction, timely death way of being runs,guides, forces one from alpha to omega of existence.
Dying from ebola virus forces one from the alpha↔omega of existence as well, but there's nothing sacred nor desirable about that. Neither is dying from infirmities of old age.

Love of self, love of other, transcendence. Immortality would select for and fill the world with individuals particularly exclusively Self-concerned. Dreadful waste of space and time whether they would be in eternity of subconscious existential angst or not.
Not sure what you're claiming here.

And I have argued that immortality is plenty a break from human profile to be called such. Apposing further transhumanism certainly would be too late after allowing immortality because biological unity and naturalism has already been thrown out of the window.
Appeals to 'naturalism' are really no different than appeals to gods or other religious spooks; 'Nature' is a superstition.

Tracking people identity and age and killing them is the ugly part not the hard part. Getting to that and minimizing having to do so would be the hard part.
As if people won't develop countermeasures against that, not to mention wealthy elites won't find loopholes to exempt themselves.

Though realistically, considering the cost-savings that life extension procedures will provide—such as eliminating the need to treat age-related diseases, keeping older people contributing productively to society, etc.—there'll be every incentive for every country in the world to make these procedures available to every person that wants them.