> Individuals may love agelessness, but let's not kid ourselves that it's anything but a disaster for species, society, etc.

You're right, however to me what seems worse path to take evolutionarily is to choose to destroy accumulation of experiences and knowledge by not passing it to next generation and instead starting with the first rudimentary step of half DNA crossing combined with random mutation.

Though we have developed ways (books) to pass that knowledge to next generation in place of nature, experiences are still lost.

It seems like evolution is more focused on the survival than survival of the fittest.

I sometimes take solace in political issues, that “at least the people who believe that will eventually die”.

If that stops being the case it will lead to more political action. And potentially more force. Not sure if that’s good or bad for society.

Another 30 years of productive healthy life, and retiring at 90 will do fine thanks.

Agree. Immortality would be a tragedy of the commons, in my opinion. At least, in an environment with limited resources. If we were capable of interstellar travel and there was no other life out there it wouldn't be, but until that happens its ultimately good for society that it has a complete turnover every hundred years, and not just for evolutionary adaptation. Imagine if Stalin or Mao had never died. Imagine if the entire British government was run by politicians from the 1300s to the 1800s. Maybe Caesar Augustus would still be running the Roman Empire, fighting a never-ending insurgency from the prophet Muhammad.

Things might have more stability, but change and opportunity would hardly exist and each succeeding generation would be permanent underclasses of children.

"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. " - Max Planck

You may like it

https://manganelo.com/chapter/epic_of_gilgamesh/chapter_0