The only downside is potential overpopulation issues, but (perhaps this is naive of me) I imagine most people would accept sterilization in exchange for eternity.
>If we still had a significant population of people born in the 1700s, what might U.S. politics look like?
Not that different, because 1) there just weren't that many people alive back then in the first place, and 2) most of them would be dead anyway, because immortality doesn't make you impervious to accidents, murder, tornadoes, etc. Even with immortality, people are eventually going to get killed somehow.
Really? I think the current ecosystem of lobbyists and tax evasion (remember the Paradise Papers?) puts the lie to that idea. I don't think you have any basis on which to make that claim.
> Once they've paid their taxes on that income
Tax havens allow you to move your profits by having the HQ in the tax haven while having a subsidiary which makes a loss in the actual country.
Maybe the benefits to brain plasticity would undo some of this retrenchment, but that's a big maybe.
In my experience of talking with 'climate deniers', that has never been the case.
Disclaimer: I don't have a citation and I'm not a psychologist.
Same disclaimer applies.
Worldwide, over many years, we have consistently seen fertility rates decreasing where life expectancy is increasing. There is debate as to cause and effect[1,2], but I believe it is largely due to a lessening of perceived risk to successful reproduction.
Warfare can and will kill many, but the rich are generally the least likely to die, because they are the most mobile and can afford the best defense.
No, they aren't. Where'd you get this crazy idea? Car accidents alone are the largest killer of younger people in the US. 30,000 people every year die in the US alone in cars.
Here's a list of leading causes of death from the CDC:
Accidents is #3, at 170,000 people per year.
>and can be decreased further with lifestyle choices that reduce such risks.
So what? What makes you think people are going to do that? They aren't doing it now; they're happily taking up stuff like vaping, which is now killing people and is all over the news.
I'm genuinely curious what the average life expectancy would be if we were able to prevent deaths due to "old age" and its concomitant ailments.
There are plenty of other ways to get yourself killed so you're still guaranteed to die some day.
Actually, I think we need to get our population down to a much lower level where we're not stressing our the planet and not stressing the limited resources we have. politically speaking, we just can't handle this many people on the planet.
I could see it having an opposite effect, people make strange decisions when they view outcomes as inevitable.
Ways to improve life expectancy:
A. keep children alive till adulthood (mostly done)
B. keep adults disease-free/healthy (somewhat done)
C. keep old people alive till natural death (little done)
D. stop natural death (possible?)
E. reverse aging (possible?)
If natural death is some sort of cellular countdown, it may suffice to stop the time, as in D.
I think for most people, what they really want is not eternal life in a 90+ year-old body, but to be able to live in a young body, which necessitates E.
It's interesting to consider scenarios where we accomplish some but not all of these, especially where C and/or D are possible but E is not.
I would look at life very, very differently if I would know that I would have a significant longer life-span. I would just chill and live more in the moment and not worry about time so much (I worry about time quite a lot right now, probably because a chapter in my life just (a day ago!) ended).
"Mitochondria-targeted hydrogen sulfide attenuates endothelial senescence by selective induction of splicing factors"
Is there more information on this? I want to know when I can expect a pill for this. :)
Currently, there are a few pills you can take to capture a similar effect (slow down but not reverse):
YMMV - Please consult a physician before adding any pill/altering diet in your regimen.
I am not a doctor, but I want to caution against blindly taking supplements like this.
DEHA is a steroid hormone. These are key components of signalling networks in your body, and they can up or down regulate many different things. It could definitely be pro-cancer 
Niagen is a precursor to NAD+. Screwing with the NAD+ metabolism might promote cancer 
There seems to be good concensus on CoQ10. It may not have an associated cancer risk (I couldn't find any literature), but it may lower blood pressure and that should be carefully considered 
Please do your homework and ask your doctor before taking any of these. There are pros and cons and a whole lot of uncertainties.
Then after reading everything you can find on each of those topics, you can also watch youtube videos with Dr. Rhonda Patrick and Dr. Bruce Ames on conservation theory. She also talks about sulforaphane at great length. She has a two hour video with another scientist and they go into some of the DoD studies being done with sulforaphane and children in reversing autism. Then for starving cancer cells, both nih.gov and youtube videos by Dr. Eric Berg (DC, not MD) and has spent the last several years researching these topics and making them more consumable by the general population. Dr. Berg sometimes leaves out important pieces of information, so keep reading on any topic he makes youtube videos about.
Great hopes! But I still think maybe it's easier for programmable nanobots with MHC complex attached to it to fix individual cells to allow us to live longer. Or maybe even change the hardware for $BRAIN_SOFTWARE.
We must be very careful here.
I am not a doctor, but my advice for those looking to live longer in an age where we don't have a magic pill :
- eat right
- get plenty of cardiovascular exercise
- avoid stess
- avoid inflammation, especially chronic
Cancer rates increase with age so younger cells in theory should mean a lower likelihood of cancer.
I also think that true age reversal will never be achievable anyway the way people think, but stopping aging may be possible. I have met some individuals who seem to exhibit qualities of negligible senescence, the only physical thing that gives away their true age is probably the quality of their skin and hair, which does not look as fresh (but still pretty good) as someone much younger.
Citations please? If we're talking about slime molds or amoebas this might be interesting trivia, but is completely irrelevant. Multicellular animal models would be more interesting.