We humans sometimes forget we're a part of Life, but we are, and we benefit from death just as much as the rest of Life.
With an immortal life -- assuming physical decay is arrested with immortality -- you have endless time to reconsider your ideas and expand on them using your wealth of knowledge and experience.
I don't see Planck's principle as inevitable, but an aberration that we can cure.
Would you tell a society of immortals living in an idyllic and peaceful village that they need to die "for science?"
Societal issues can be solved without science. Once you tackle scarcity and long+healthy lives, science becomes much less important.
Anyways, the pace of scientific progress is irrelevant if you live forever. You would experience infinitely more net progress if you were immortal.
I'd also challenge the idea that innovation happens outside of death and birth. It often takes a new pair of eyes to see a new solution to a problem.
> It often takes a new pair of eyes to see a new solution to a problem.
Why does this require death of current people and not simply more eyes that already exist?
If confronted with a society of people that live forever, but are relatively stagnant, would you propose to them that they all kill themselves every 80 years or so, so they "adapt?"
Why is adaptation more important than a life? A life is incredibly precious. Evolutionary adaptation barely works anymore and the cost in blood is immeasurable. Otherwise, adaptation can be achieved easily with technology, without costing so many people their hopes, dreams, and existence.