Exactly. You won’t endanger your immortal soul to go get a check-up.

But, on the other hand, what institution would not be rocked by indefinite life? Our whole society is built on a life cycle model. We’re born, grow and learn, work, get married (or, perhaps I should say, pair up), have children, work harder, retire, and die.

There’s not one aspect of that cycle that wouldn’t change. We would probably choose to physically mature just as quickly, but education might go much longer (Maybe not. With everything changing so quickly, perhaps students would just be taught to be lifelong scholars. Once they’ve grasped the importance of that, send students out and have them learn as they need to), people might be slower to settle down – they might live, as Leon Kass fears, a Seinfeld life for a long time.

Kids – who knows how that would go? Would people have more kids because their “child-bearing” years stretch on, or would they put off having kids indefinitely because they have the time? Probably there will be some of both, but it seems to me that the putting off model seems to be winning right now – and we don’t even have life extension yet.

Will people look at marriage the same way? Some elderly people are no doubt bidding their time. Sure they’re sick of the sight of their spouse, but why get divorced at age 80? “Truce! I’m too tired to fight anyway. Last one alive wins.”

Cynical, but probably true for some. Others, no doubt, are very much in love after many years of marriage. If they were granted youth again, they’d stick together.

As the husband of a geriatric nursing aid, I would point out to Stephen Gordon that extending drool time is not a worthwhile goal; it is only when we extend middle age that we are accomplishing something. See for example Aldous Huxley’s “After Many A Summer Dies The Swan”.

But if immortality just means that you need some sort of fancy checkup every six months, then what’s the big deal?

1. Humans are a product of nature. Whatever technology we come up with is, by definition, natural.

2. But, if life extension isn’t natural, so what? Nature uniquely burdened us with brains big enough to understand the inevitability and implication of death. If we choose to use those big brains to postpone death, then why shouldn’t we? That’s just sweet irony.

To nature, intelligence was just another adaptation no different from webbed feet for a duck. But intelligence is unique. It’s Pandora’s box.

And we didn’t open it.

Perhaps this line of thought is just silly. There’s maybe little point in arguing over whether some technology is natural or not. Maybe the better question is “Is this the right thing to do?”

Life extension is the right thing to do because each death is a unique tragedy – the loss of an individual. If our society has to change to accommodate extremely long lives, then let it change. Society has been through upheavals over much less.

I am struck by the juxtaposition of ideas in your last two paragraphs. I agree that, in a certain sense, the effort to extend life comes “naturally.” But there is also a very strong sense that most of us have (and that many, if not most, will argue in defense of) that there is something supremely “unnatural” about trying to ward off death.

Maybe life extension advocates are the first wave of apes to suggest that, hey, perhaps we should give this “swimming” thing a try.