That's your opinion. I think it's a mind bogglingly bizarre one, but sure. But what isn't an opinion is the "resource constraints" idea. That's just wrong and unrelated. There would need be no resource constraints. In fact, without a workforce that gets old and dies, certain resources would be even more plentiful. Certainly labor. Economies would have to adapt somewhat.

It is many people's (and my) opinion that death is one of the most tragic facts of life we currently face. All that knowledge and personality and life that makes up a person just disappears? What an idiotic process. If we can put an end to it we should.

> I can't begin to think of the resource constraints a population would have if none of them have to die.

population growth is caused by procreation which is just other side of the coin to mortality. If (big "if" actually) species of immortals (who thus wouldn't need any significant procreation) would have higher evolution speed than mortal&procreation species then immortals would take over. We'll see this split (and resulting competition between subspecies) in human species in the coming decades.

We might take better care of Earth, if we thought we would be around in 5000 years. Turns out that people tend to care more about themselves than theoretical great-great-grandchildren - no matter how much they protest otherwise.

So I don't think your argument from resource constraints and carrying capacity is self-evident.

This is the basis for the film Zardoz.