>>110008791. You're not wrong, but that would also make money lending more secure and the like, so a lot of the economic impact would be good. Keeping them fertile might not be needed, albeit it might no count as true immortality if you don't. Still, that's a problem in our current framework, but in a fully automated society it might not - which is why there's not much of a point in predicting this stuff right now.
2-People accumulate wisdom and knowledge over time. 300 year old people would also be significantly more capable to make decisions. However, if knowledge were to flatline after a certain time, they would simply be average adults with different viewpoints - which would hardly stagnate knowledge.
3-That might be a problem indeed, but again, in the future that might not be a problem, since a very old human could be able to cope better with death, or maybe there are digital copies of their loved ones. I'm not saying there's any guarantee, but as I've said before, it's a problem that will take place in the far future, were the environment is different. Medicine might be able to decrease the suffering of loss trough perfected antidepressants for example.
We do have limited lifespans for a reason, but most of them relate to resources and natural selection, which aren't that relevant right now. Our brains likely aren't well equipped to deal with immortality however, and I agree we'd have to solve said problems most likely. I just don't think they're such a hard wall to bypass.
