People display apparently contrarian behaviour all the time for perfectly rational reasons. Nobody 'wants' to pay taxes, yet we often vote for governments that raise taxes because we agree with what they intend to spend it on. We agree with the national speed limits becaus ethey improve road safety, then break the speed limit with embarrasing frequency.
I think this is another similar case. Hardly anyone really wants to die, but most of us can appreciate that eliminating death would rapidly lead to appalling resource crises, so I can easily see a majority choosing to ban such a technology unless the fairly obvious potential negative consequences can be shown to be resolvable.
And it's that thought pattern that will mean that if we find a key to immortality, those of us that would rather try to manage the fallout rather than be consigned to the earth will be denied the opportunity.
Well that and the inevitable 'OMG unnatural, stop playing god'.
Here's the last part of my comment again: "..unless the fairly obvious potential negative consequences can be shown to be resolvable"
Demonstrate that you have a credible strategy for managing the fallout and I'd back you up myself. What you don't get to do is just charge ahead on a wish and a prayer that maybe you can mitigate the consequences. Show some responsibility and actually address the issues, and who knows?
'What you don't get to do is just charge ahead on a wish and a prayer that maybe you can mitigate the consequences.'
Why should you get to say whether I can live forever? You don't want to, go ahead and die.
That came across as more confrontational than I intended. There will never be a credible strategy until the situation is faced, humanity does not seem to work the other way (with actual foresight).
I didn't take that as confrontational, just direct and to the point given the context of what we're talking about.
Our society has laws and I don't know where you live, but I'm a Brit and live in a democracy. The majority will get to decide. There will be ways round it - going to other countries, etc but as a society that's just how we do things. There are things that are more important (to some of us) than one person, or even a group of people, or even everyone living for ever and those things are worth protecting.
You can take it that I disagree with the idea that a democracy should be able to get anywhere close to ruling on whether or not the individuals within said democracy get to live or die.
Your post does make an amusing (and very sci-fi) idea pop into my head though, that of fugitive, criminal immortals. The idea of an immortal hiding what they are isn't new - it's usually because they don't know how people will react, or they wouldn't be able to fit into society, or they might get experimented upon to find the secret. It seems at least a little novel to have a situation in which it is known that some people will live forever, and by the very nature of having taken on immortality they are necessarily fugitive.
I suppose it's not too dissimilar from some of Asimov's robot stuff.
I think this is another similar case. Hardly anyone really wants to die, but most of us can appreciate that eliminating death would rapidly lead to appalling resource crises, so I can easily see a majority choosing to ban such a technology unless the fairly obvious potential negative consequences can be shown to be resolvable.