Changing the way people around the world think about death is pretty significant, though. It's going to rewrite important aspects of many cultures. Edit: I mean "make people think differently" is underselling it.
Landing on the moon in 1969 rewrote a lot too. I bet if you asked people back then what the future would be like, the space program would look a little different.
A great problem is the current mindset. Many, many people think of life extension as undesirable. It's mind-boggling at first sight, but then you understand it for what it is: the Stockholm Syndrome, with Death as the hostage-taker, and all the life-extension-deniers as the hostages.
We need to get out of that hole first. Google is doing the right thing.
Thinking that death is a problem or 'a bad thing that happens' is incredibly short-sighted. Improving the well-being of humanity in general is a great goal; life extension can be a different topic entirely.
While I'd love to live a thousand years (as long as it's in decent health), the big danger to society is obviously that it'll be the very rich that will live that long, and they'll hold on to their power that much longer. It creates an even bigger division between rich and poor.
Imagine what the world would look like if the medieval elite were still alive today. It's good that the people in power die every once in a while.
The problem that I see with this statement, from my perspective:
If everyone died at 30, everyone would say the same thing about life extension past 30.
If everyone died at 200, everyone would say the same thing about life extension past 200.
Why does death have to be where it is now? Natural death from aging comes a little longer than a few other causes of death tend to hit, but it's still very, very soon. People's twitch thinking skills start to decline so early (even in the 20s), and while they can more than make up for it through increasing knowledge, we have so little time to build that knowledge before we have to go.
