It’s impossible to judge how it will be implemented just as it was impossible to judge for previous humans what the effects of the printing press, antibiotics, etc. would be going forward. Future society will operate by entirely different paradigms than what we are accustomed to now. It is highly possible that in a dwindlingly populated word with negative replacement rates that immortality is seen as the solution. In fact, based on trends, I would say this is a likely reality, given that it is possible to begin with.

An appeal to nature is not a good justification for not changing how society operates. Many technological and social revolutions have occurred that significantly changed how life operated for the majority of society. Electric lights alone completely changed the way society operates. Humans then would have questioned, “how does people staying up later positively benefit us as a species? It’s better to go to sleep with the sun,” and they were wrong. Computers and the internet are another one of these major changes. Along with antibiotics, the advent of fast travel, rights for women, etc.

The delay or lack of aging will merely be another one of these drastic shifts in how society operates and how we love our lives. It is not our place to say “this is where this technology should stop advancing because it is unnatural” anymore than any of the aforementioned revolutions are.

Yes yes, and I’m sure the people of thousands of years ago found their average death at 13 years old comfortable, or even a few hundred years ago, their death at 40 comfortable. We are already living unnatural existences. I should not even have survived past one year old. Is that an aberration? Yep, sure is, “unnatural” as you say. Do I care? Nope. I suppose if life is unending suffering for you that you have more going on internally than a lot of others. I for one am content to be alive, and wish to continue to be so until I see fit.