Imagine everyone living for 250 years. Personally I'm not willing to sacrifice an extra 150 years of life just to kill a few billionaires.

Society would not collapse. Anti-aging could actually save us from an upcoming demographic crash. As populations urbanize, birth rates go down, and most advanced nations are way below replacement rates.

Meanwhile, between cheap solar, probably fusion (see my other reply), and cultured food production, our per-capita impact on the planet could well shrink by a lot over the next fifty years.

At this point fusion is probably more like ten years in the future.

Fusion progressed exponentially from 1970 to 2000, at a faster pace than Moore's Law. Then 35 nations threw almost all their fusion money at ITER, a giant reactor in France that won't actually run before 2027, and hopes to attempt fusion in 2035.

But technology moved on. We have new superconductors that let us build a reactor like ITER but ten times smaller, and several companies are doing it. We have supercomputers that are way better at plasma simulations, letting us design new types of fusion reactors that are smaller and cheaper. Lasers have advanced exponentially too; the NIF project technically got net power from fusion last year, but used giant lasers that are less than 1% efficient; we have lasers now that can do the same thing, but they fit in a small room, are over 20% efficient, and can fire once a second instead of twice a day. We have way better power electronics.

Startup companies are taking advantage of all of this. Zap Energy is attempting net power this year, CFS in 2025, General Fusion in 2026, and Helion is attempting overall net electricity in 2024 with a mostly-aneutronic fuel.