I for one would like a bit more time. 200? Maybe 500? No one likely wants to be immortal but 80 or so seems criminally short for what our abilities are and how long it takes for us to find our calling.
I'll see you all at the heat death of the universe.
Therefore, no, we should not search for immortality, Terra will be unliveable for carbon-based organisms in 1 billion years [1], but we should look for mechanisms to preserve a somewhat trivial metabolism of ~50-90 kg of mass for 10,000 to 100,000 years.
[1] "1.2 billion years [from now], high estimate until all plant life dies out [...] rising temperatures will make any animal life unsustainable from this point on" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Ear...
Therefore, the only way I can see a lifespan push, not only x2, but x10, or even x100 (10,000 years—once you get x3/x4, it probably scales trivially) is through 100% organ regeneration and 100% programmatic control over the morphospace. Broke an arm? Amputate the limb and grow another one back, your cells already did it before. Liver cancer? Regrow another liver. Heart issues? Make another heart. Spend all the years above 35 as a perpetual 35 year old, eventually in the bodyshape of Chris Hemsworth/Margot Robbie (to keep the examples in Australia). This scientific fancy is somehow grounded in the mind-expanding perspectives coming from Dr. Michael Levin's lab [2]. Personally, I'm compelled enough by their thesis, programmatic control over cells, that I started learning about their work, BETSE, Bio Electric Tissue Simulation Engine [3], and try to build on top a BioElectric Simulation Orchestrator, BESO [4]. Most probably, however, we won't see 100% human organ regeneration in our regular lifetimes, but never say never.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment
[2] Speaking with Cells: the Electrical Future of Regenerative Medicine with Dr. Michael Levin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzGaakopAKU
I'm not involved with that organization, but I find their work very interesting.
As a backup plan, there's Alcor. https://www.alcor.org/
If a drug or therapy truly does extend life span I can also see systems forming where the few want to keep it to themselves and away from the many. One way or another I can’t imagine this being the the top priority of anyone but the most vain (personal opinion) so I would not associate myself with such research is all.
For example, people who live much longer would probably think about the environment on longer time scales. That includes climate change, pollution, resource exhaustion, and so on. They might consider helping to improve their society, because even if it took several generations they might live to see the benefits.
People who live longer can afford to make better long term investments, instead of trying to cash in on short get rich quick schemes.
They might take better care of their health, knowing that they're not just risking the usually healthy 20s-60s range, but a 20s-200s range, when doing risky activities. Those risky activities sometimes affect others.
People may care to invest in research to cure other diseases because more people will live long enough to suffer from them.
And so on...
Honestly this seems like a better use of resources than a holiday or a new TV.
I personally think we need better tooling. We need atomically precise manufacturing, so as to create medical interventions on the smallest scale.
To this end I hope to be launching a molecular nanotechnology startup in the near future.
Asking people to "take the quick way out", though, IS asking someone to kill himself for having an opinion you don't seem to like.
looks like I didn't misunderstand at all.
It's also a big difference in outlook -- people that would scoff at life extension would also be the people ready to "end" something in life, and not constantly be at the teat of something. For example, young soldiers in WW1. That sort of outlook is alien to most now, modernity's pit of comfort makes a fool of anyone who partakes.