I have, but that is just one point of view, which I happen to disagree with. Given a mortal life, you have to cling to what you can carve out. You're going to die and your current ideas are all you're going to get; anyone who overthrows them is a threat to your 'legacy'.

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.

Why is scientific progress more important than life itself?

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.

Yes, because we also control physical adaptation to a degree. Human adaptation has been disconnected from physical evolution for a long time now. How many type-1 diabetics only live now because of changes we invented our way out of?

> 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?