My friend’s daughter is doing a project on biological immortality. It would be great if you could help her by answering a short survey.
She writes:
"This is a part of the primary research for my EPQ, titled: “To what extent does telomere biology hold the key to achieving biological immortality?”
By completing this form, you will be helping me to gather data for the second half of my project, which involves an evaluation of public understanding and perspectives on biological immortality. The results will be analysed and used as a source of information for my final dissertation."
So as much as eliminating the problems of old age would be a huge win, there are two things that really make me hesitate to endorse it:
Plank’s Principle “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it …” widespread immortality would mean that senior respected scientists would maintain their extremely respected position, and would potentially stifle any progress as their reputations were sunk into existing paradigms. The strongest voices in the community would have a permanent vested interest in already existing. Hopefully eliminating aging would also eliminate the tendency to calcify in one’s beliefs, but the reputational reasons to not change their minds would persist regardless.
The indefinite perpetualization of existing dictatorships. Succession is when dictatorship is at its weakest, since the new ruler doesn’t have the legitimacy that the previous regime did; with immortality, dictators would be able to maintain their position indefinitely.