Interbane wrote:

Also, if science could extend human life indefinitely, it would present a seemingly insurmountable problem of overpopulation. For that reason, such knowledge would almost certainly be available only to a select few rich individuals. It would be every bit as evil as eugenics.

This is a popular trope in sci-fi, and there are countless ways I've seen it implemented. If our genetic code was re-engineered to eliminate aging, we'd still have radiation damage to cellular DNA here and there, which would add up over time. The only way to counter this would be a "gene resetting" procedure, which would be tremendously expensive.

Beyond that, 15% of people still die at some point between birth and age 50, from accidents and whatnot. I don't know how to run the math, but I think that even with immortal genes, only the most careful people will live to 300ish.

Ick. I am old enough now that I don't see a lot of point in living a long time just to be living. Heinlein, who took "Stranger in a Strange Land" even further with Lazarus Long, would accept none of that.

I think it seriously diminishes the quality of life to choose such an option when most others cannot, in the same way that choosing freedom by enslaving others diminished the quality of life. People wrested civilization out of that barbarism of enslaving others, but I think it could have arrived more gently and peaceably. The question is Athens vs. Sparta all over again, or perhaps Judea vs. Persia. Is it better to be the one who seizes the reins, if it requires incessant dedication to violence, or is it better to make our home within our humanity in spite of the domination systems evolving around us?

America has largely chosen the latter, bringing a modicum of unsordidness to this great power.