Hubris comes in many forms and the desire to be immortal the most classic. But another modern form of hubris is to imagine that science should be restrained by our concerns over its outcomes. The hubristic flaw is the presumption that we have any idea what the consequences will be, much less whether we can judge them "good" or "bad." Most advances have been mixed blessings, to be sure, but we free to pick and choose amongst them - a freedom ignorance does not provide.

As to the question at hand, I am much more sanguine than Nunoaol, that a substantially longer life would be a virtue for more than those lucky enough to enjoy them. Just imagine the sort of investments in human capital that would be justified if the return could be collected over 200 years. Or how different our risk assesments would be - would any of us drive, or eat greasy food?

But most importantly whether I think it would be a good idea or not is really of no consequence. All individuals should decide for themselves this the most personal of all questions.

Kindest Regards,

Douglas