So... Dying of "Old Age" Might Not Be a Thing if We Do it Right

[Accelerator]

My thanks to all who posted here. I will be offline as it's time for bed, so if you're waiting for any of my replies then please wait for around 8-9 hours from now. Again, my thanks.

 

[Warmheart]

I’m more in favor of working with nature than against it.

 

[WereBear]

I’m more in favor of working with nature than against it.

This is why I am alive today. No exaggeration.

When my health began its long and tormenting decline, I began a frenzy of research that led to extensive supplementation. Because of stress and age and medical mistakes, I was missing quantities of what my body needed to function and heal. Supplying such turned out to be a pivotal tactic, as important as reducing stress, which I can only do in limited ways right now.

Like the way my body was overproducing some hormones, and skimping on others. By taking the hormone precursor, pregnenolone, I was able to supply a cement truck at the building site, and my body could figure out what to make from it.

Likewise, taking B vitamins, some in large quantities, helped my poor brain cope and return to function.

Another important move was re-tuning my Circadian rhythm. Good sleep is good health.

All of us in Western Civilization deal with lousy nutrition and excess stress and bad sleep. Mine just started bigger and earlier than most, and now that I am dealing with it, I am handling it better than most.

 

[wight]

Well, I would first like to point out that in the time that it would take to develop and make available the means to this "forever middle-agedness" (because that seems most likely in the near future), technology in other fields will also have developed past their current states (optimistically, and realistically), so maybe by then robots will have completed their takeover of the workforce, leaving humans to do whatever, because they're obsolete (See CGP Grey's "Humans Need Not Apply" video). Now hopefully by then money is meaningless, or at least optional to living a full life, so even the "poorest" can live in higher standards than most people today; we get more for less, and technology will continue on this trend as long as Moore's Law holds true, even if it's just until we develop the medical technology to be biologically immortal.
Now, if you're concerned about overpopulation, that's mainly happening in developing countries where they're still transitioning into the 4th stage of demographic transition, much like how the 1st world countries before them did (See the video below), so in time they will also slow down population growth-wise (also, in all likelihood given that the current plausible method of extending life would be through 3 processes meant to complement each other needs infrastructure such as hospitals, healthcare and etc. that comes with a developed or 1st world country like say... Germany or France or Canada, so by then the people will likely be better educated, and apparently that correlates with lower birth rates according some studies I can't quite remember).
Now if by generational changes you mean how parents feel and interact about their kids and their generation and vice versa, and how grandparents feel and interact with their grandkids and their generation and vice versa, and so on and so forth, I would imagine that that would be far less of an evil than having those parents and grandparents die of their body breaking down due to physics (refer to the 2nd video in my original post). Besides, we're already going through a similar problem today due to older generations not being on level with the kids (often due to problems related to their age and the diseases and problems caused by it), so I think that eventually having everyone look and be able to act the way they always did would do wonders for relations between generations, as both the older generations and the current adult generation would be facing similar problems and experiences, and ergo, a point of commonality.
As for emotional and mental health, I would think that if their long lives a cause for distress, then it'd probably be a common thing to go to counseling for, so by then I'd hope that we'll have prepared for that. I also imagine that if it truly were too much or if they were content to die already, then euthanasia would likely be an option for them.
Now, "pace of living" sounds a little vague, but I would imagine that with more time on our hands, we'd be free to take our time in things, maybe not stress so much over them (like requirements, god, requirements, why~?), pursue our interests and discover new ones, and spend more time with family and friends. I imagine that those things in particular are what many people (including myself), hope to gain from it.

You are talking about some sort of "utopian" future that would require not just a fundamental change in society, but a fundamental change in human nature itself. I find this extremely unlikely.

Here is what "biological immortality" would probably look like:

Only the super rich could afford it at first. Thereby extending their ability to consolidate wealth and power. Instead of royal dynasties where a single family rules for hundreds of years, we would have one person ruling for hundreds of years... thousands. Once they controlled the market and technology, they would ensure that no one else could get it.

Imagine a world where the people in power now, are forever in power and the only way to get rid of them is violence. The CEO of the banks are ALWAYS the CEO, the presidents of all the countries are ALWAYS the presidents, the money-power brokers never die and just go on-and-on with greed and consumption. Picture the worst days of imperial feudalism, the starvation, death and atrocities of present day North Korea, only for everyone, on a global scale.

Imagine what sort of plans these people just might come up with to "dispose" of all the "excess population." The worst of the population control and eugenics movements, a Nazi Germany style "final solution" for everyone or anyone that the now immortal elite don't want around anymore.

Sound like fun?

 

[Amy Susan Rose]

Foxes, spruce trees, and salmon all age and transition from their current forms, as do we, is my thinking.

To me, the more valued task would be to gradually develop, learn, and grow one’s inner strength and understanding....
So that old age is seen as a gift of inner strength, solidity, increased skills, and understanding of our interconnectedness with all life.Perhaps when young, many of us are inclined to think that we are only this body and may wish to somehow defeat old age and death. As we mature many are fortunate enough to realize different. When we are older, perhaps we can better perceive our interconnectedness, and embrace the natural gifts within our life cycle before we transition.

Warmheart, I could not have conveyed this concept so befittingly (I especially love "perceiving our interconnectedness....our live cycle before we transition"); we encompass so much more than just the physical; namely spiritual (and I am not a Christian). And to tie in with Warmheart's comment, when you acquire the gifts of old age you are more inclined to embrace the concept of death for you have lived long and hopefully have learned much that books and science cannot teach one. And remember also, many die at a young age. Also if we were to develop the means to prolong life the problems of overpopulation would be frighteningly explosive.

 

[Accelerator]

You are talking about some sort of "utopian" future that would require not just a fundamental change in society, but a fundamental change in human nature itself. I find this extremely unlikely.

Here is what "biological immortality" would probably look like:

Only the super rich could afford it at first. Thereby extending their ability to consolidate wealth and power. Instead of royal dynasties where a single family rules for hundreds of years, we would have one person ruling for hundreds of years... thousands. Once they controlled the market and technology, they would ensure that no one else could get it.

Imagine a world where the people in power now, are forever in power and the only way to get rid of them is violence. The CEO of the banks are ALWAYS the CEO, the presidents of all the countries are ALWAYS the presidents, the money-power brokers never die and just go on-and-on with greed and consumption. Picture the worst days of imperial feudalism, the starvation, death and atrocities of present day North Korea, only for everyone, on a global scale.

Imagine what sort of plans these people just might come up with to "dispose" of all the "excess population." The worst of the population control and eugenics movements, a Nazi Germany style "final solution" for everyone or anyone that the now immortal elite don't want around anymore.

Sound like fun?

I'll get to you in a bit. Just gonna reply to some other posts first.

 

[Accelerator]

I’m more in favor of working with nature than against it.

This is why I am alive today. No exaggeration.

When my health began its long and tormenting decline, I began a frenzy of research that led to extensive supplementation. Because of stress and age and medical mistakes, I was missing quantities of what my body needed to function and heal. Supplying such turned out to be a pivotal tactic, as important as reducing stress, which I can only do in limited ways right now.

Like the way my body was overproducing some hormones, and skimping on others. By taking the hormone precursor, pregnenolone, I was able to supply a cement truck at the building site, and my body could figure out what to make from it.

Likewise, taking B vitamins, some in large quantities, helped my poor brain cope and return to function.

Another important move was re-tuning my Circadian rhythm. Good sleep is good health.

All of us in Western Civilization deal with lousy nutrition and excess stress and bad sleep. Mine just started bigger and earlier than most, and now that I am dealing with it, I am handling it better than most.

Yes, if you plan on living long and healthy you will need to lessen stress, sleep properly (good god don't I know this one), eat a proper diet and exercise, but in the face of your body breaking down due to physics I don't think it'll do much.
Now, with regards to "working with nature" I'll need you to specify a bit more, because that sounds just really vague to me. The way the 3 treatments described in my original post's 3rd video work in principle is that they are, in a way, "working with nature." The discussed method of clearing the body senescent cells (cells that no longer undergo mitosis and don't under go programmed cell death to make way for new cells, damaging the cells around them, basically zombie cells) is by giving the body an injection of the protein that cells use to tell if they should "commit suicide" to make way for healthy cells. Mind you, the only thing we're doing is giving the body the proteins it needs to do what it does. Maintaining the body's ability to remove and replace broken down parts of the "system," so to speak, only involves giving the body supplements of a certain protein (or rather the predecessor for it so it can use that to make more of the needed protein). Supplementing the body with stem cells as discussed in the video is basically a transplant, or like a blood donation (actually, almost exactly like a blood donation). Now if all these don't fit under "working with nature," I'm really curious to see what does count as "working with nature."

The video:

 

[pjcnet]

If ageing was removed on a mass scale the world's population would keep growing unless they virtually removed child birth, E.g. children could only replace the people who die from other illness, accidents, war Etc, plus if aging was removed, then illness would be reduced too as younger people are generally a lot fitter with stronger immune systems. If population growth wasn't very strictly controlled eventually people in the world would die anyway from the problems of overpopulation and the world would become a much more dangerous place where people would soon find they're fighting over limited resources and space to survive, in fact instinct and survival of the fitness would soon kick in. Overall releasing a discovery like this and making it available to the masses could cause us to destroy ourselves to virtual extinction, rather than live longer (it will probably happen one day anyway). Removing ageing on a mass scale would only really be feasible if/when we conquer very long distance space flight at faster than light speeds (no matter what Einstein Etc. stays it almost certainly is possible and may have already been done by other beings), then we'd have to find planets where we can keep expanding the human population, or perhaps terraform them (that is possible too).

The worrying thing is if someone did discover a way to stop ageing (and I suspect someone will, remember that our body is only told to grow older and slow down, it is possible to turn this off), then who will have access to the technology? It could even have been secretly discovered somewhere now and kept from everyone for fear that it could destroy us, who truly knows? Perhaps if released it could be only affordable by the very richest people in the world for instance and only otherwise given to leaders. Then what would some people do in order to get their hands on the technology? Who-ever controls a discovery like this would be all powerful and if it was 1 country it could easily start a war.

 

[Accelerator]

Warmheart, I could not have conveyed this concept so befittingly (I especially love "perceiving our interconnectedness....our live cycle before we transition"); we encompass so much more than just the physical; namely spiritual (and I am not a Christian). And to tie in with Warmheart's comment, when you acquire the gifts of old age you are more inclined to embrace the concept of death for you have lived long and hopefully have learned much that books and science cannot teach one. And remember also, many die at a young age. Also if we were to develop the means to prolong life the problems of overpopulation would be frighteningly explosive.

I must refer to you to the video on overpopulation below, as well as CGP Grey's video on dying (mind you, if you're not used to him then he may seem a little forceful; closest thing I can think of is something like Christopher Hitchens, though not really). Dying at a young age isn't nearly as common a thing today as it was in say... the middle ages. Seriously, the video on overpopulation explains quite a bit.
Now, with regards to "acquiring the gifts of old age," I must still point out that while there's nothing wrong with wanting to die when you want to (that's euthanasia), it can also be argued that the diseases, rot and cancer that comes with unhindered aging is something you'd rather avoid yes? I suppose CGP Grey's video can say more than I can at the moment, so just see the videos below and come back to me after.

The video on overpopulation:

CGP Grey on death:

 

[Accelerator]

You are talking about some sort of "utopian" future that would require not just a fundamental change in society, but a fundamental change in human nature itself. I find this extremely unlikely.

Here is what "biological immortality" would probably look like:

Only the super rich could afford it at first. Thereby extending their ability to consolidate wealth and power. Instead of royal dynasties where a single family rules for hundreds of years, we would have one person ruling for hundreds of years... thousands. Once they controlled the market and technology, they would ensure that no one else could get it.

Imagine a world where the people in power now, are forever in power and the only way to get rid of them is violence. The CEO of the banks are ALWAYS the CEO, the presidents of all the countries are ALWAYS the presidents, the money-power brokers never die and just go on-and-on with greed and consumption. Picture the worst days of imperial feudalism, the starvation, death and atrocities of present day North Korea, only for everyone, on a global scale.

Imagine what sort of plans these people just might come up with to "dispose" of all the "excess population." The worst of the population control and eugenics movements, a Nazi Germany style "final solution" for everyone or anyone that the now immortal elite don't want around anymore.

Sound like fun?

First, I would imagine that that would be a terrible time to live in. But second, all that assumes that they don't get intercepted somewhere in between by whatever reason; most of the developed world where this research is being conducted isn't some backwater dictatorship; there are educated people (as much as I would love to deny it after bloody Trump getting elected), and given that we already know about this (or at least have caught wind of this), anything they do to "stop" or make this exclusive will likely be met with opposition. A bloody important caveat to this is that people get educated, and though I can't say much for America (never been there, but the image in my head is bleak), the trend of the world today is that more people are learning more than than any other time in human history before, so I'd imagine something a la V for Vendetta happening. That's also under the belief that humanity is ****** in general (and yes, many are), but that ignores the people who do care, the eccentric billionaires (see Elon Musk and Bill Gates), people like Stephen Fry, hell, the fact that Wikipedia is even a thing is a sign that, maybe, just enough humans are good enough to care (Because if most of humanity were trolls then no one would take citations from Wikipedia seriously). Seriously, as much as I would love to hate humanity and call it the most evil of creatures, that ignores the fact that humans have been evil, yes, but from the depths of evil they can also reach the heavens of good). Ageing, or rather, the nasty side effects of it, has claimed many a loved one, so I would hope that even a fraction of these good people would say something about it given the chance.

 

[Accelerator]

You are talking about some sort of "utopian" future that would require not just a fundamental change in society, but a fundamental change in human nature itself. I find this extremely unlikely.

Here is what "biological immortality" would probably look like:

Only the super rich could afford it at first. Thereby extending their ability to consolidate wealth and power. Instead of royal dynasties where a single family rules for hundreds of years, we would have one person ruling for hundreds of years... thousands. Once they controlled the market and technology, they would ensure that no one else could get it.

Imagine a world where the people in power now, are forever in power and the only way to get rid of them is violence. The CEO of the banks are ALWAYS the CEO, the presidents of all the countries are ALWAYS the presidents, the money-power brokers never die and just go on-and-on with greed and consumption. Picture the worst days of imperial feudalism, the starvation, death and atrocities of present day North Korea, only for everyone, on a global scale.

Imagine what sort of plans these people just might come up with to "dispose" of all the "excess population." The worst of the population control and eugenics movements, a Nazi Germany style "final solution" for everyone or anyone that the now immortal elite don't want around anymore.

Sound like fun?

Some extra reading if you want:
Rejuvenation May Bring Challenges to Society but are they Worse than Age-related Diseases? | | LEAF
Why Bringing Aging Under Medical Control Probably Will Not Create a Gerontocracy | | LEAF
Why Eradicating Age-related Diseases is Unlikely to Create Immortal Dictators | | LEAF
Immortality isn't unethical | Alexander Chisholm

If there are inconsistencies or some other issues with them, then please mention exactly so I can perhaps find better sources.

 

[Accelerator]

If ageing was removed on a mass scale the world's population would keep growing unless they virtually removed child birth, E.g. children could only replace the people who die from other illness, accidents, war Etc, plus if aging was removed, then illness would be reduced too as younger people are generally a lot fitter with stronger immune systems. If population growth wasn't very strictly controlled eventually people in the world would die anyway from the problems of overpopulation and the world would become a much more dangerous place where people would soon find they're fighting over limited resources and space to survive, in fact instinct and survival of the fitness would soon kick in. Overall releasing a discovery like this and making it available to the masses could cause us to destroy ourselves to virtual extinction, rather than live longer (it will probably happen one day anyway). Removing ageing on a mass scale would only really be feasible if/when we conquer very long distance space flight at faster than light speeds (no matter what Einstein Etc. stays it almost certainly is possible and may have already been done by other beings), then we'd have to find planets where we can keep expanding the human population, or perhaps terraform them (that is possible too).

The worrying thing is if someone did discover a way to stop ageing (and I suspect someone will, remember that our body is only told to grow older and slow down, it is possible to turn this off), then who will have access to the technology? It could even have been secretly discovered somewhere now and kept from everyone for fear that it could destroy us, who truly knows? Perhaps if released it could be only affordable by the very richest people in the world for instance and only otherwise given to leaders. Then what would some people do in order to get their hands on the technology? Who-ever controls a discovery like this would be all powerful and if it was 1 country it could easily start a war.

Hello, your fears are reasonable, but regarding your fears involving overpopulation I'd like to direct you to the video below.
Now, regarding your fear about the accessibility, I'd like to point out that much of the expenses a perfectly health person would incur (assuming no freak accidents happen) would be from their treatments of the things caused by or are related to aging (i.e. the breaking down of the body due to physics), around like 2/3rds, with another third from their middle-aged years. Now, Universal Heathcare is a thing, and this method might actually be cheaper than what we do today; prevention is better than the cure after all.
And going to war would actually need a few things to happen:
1) People are being greedy ****s, in which case that'll likely become a lawsuit with protests and stuff
2) The countries can't just, I dunno... trade for the technology (not to sound rude)? The fact that countries get along much better than they did before makes this kind of a common thing
3) The research is completely private, in which case we may never even have heard of this in the first place, but it's not quite the case
4) Most people involved in the research don't quite live in despotic dictatorships; the researchers have voices, and so do the people, they can do their best to cry "Foul!" when shifty stuff happens. The publicity of it also means that people can independently research this sorta' thing (scientists obviously)

Overpopulation:

 

[Accelerator]

Before anyone posts anything, I implore you to read the whole thing first; it gets tiring having to explain the same thing over and over when the question can be answered by the first post.

 

[pjcnet]

Overpopulation:

In my opinion this video only applies if people are still ageing even if people live to older ages on average. If people don't age at all I still think the population will continue increasing until horrid things happens that kills a lot of people in other ways. As population increases births will slow down yes, but births won't stop completely and the population will still increase unless forcibly controlled until we are unsustainable and ridiculously overcrowded, then the population will decrease after we hit a highest point. If population is strictly controlled it will cause other issues and this in itself could bring some of it's own civil unrest, but if no-one grew old it would be the only possible resolution at a time where we haven't got the technology to expand the human race beyond Earth.

Imagine how much land and housing would cost if there's 10 times the population of today for instance, before long there will be mass homelessness, then will there be enough land to feed everyone? I strongly suspect not, but that will most probably be the case well before the population hits 10 times and people will die anyway. Imagine how much a loaf of bread will cost with extremely high population? Unless you are wealthy normal food eventually won't be affordable to the average person as there simply won't be enough food or resources to go around. Then imagine our overall energy usage, okay perhaps we will use better forms of energy (that will probably be dangerous) and resolve some of this, but the prices are still more likely to go up and be non affordable by some.

All this will be the start of survival of the fittest as do you think that the millions of starving people are just going to sit there and die? No there will be extreme civil unrest and killing as people desperately fight for survival. Yes the population will reach a limit because people will be killed in other ways instead of old age and the planet will be a much more dangerous and hostile place as the population is near the higher limit. Also I still think there will be an increased risk of war as countries also fight over limited resources and there will be civil wars too, all this will also create more death in other ways, but it could also ultimately cause an apocalypse.

 

[Accelerator]

In my opinion this video only applies if people are still ageing even if people live to older ages on average. If people don't age at all I still think the population will continue increasing until horrid things happens that kills a lot of people in other ways. As population increases births will slow down yes, but births won't stop completely and the population will still increase unless forcibly controlled until we are unsustainable and ridiculously overcrowded, then the population will decrease after we hit a highest point. If population is strictly controlled it will cause other issues and this in itself could bring some of it's own civil unrest, but if no-one grew old it would be the only possible resolution at a time where we haven't got the technology to expand the human race beyond Earth.

Imagine how much land and housing would cost if there's 10 times the population of today for instance, before long there will be mass homelessness, then will there be enough land to feed everyone? I strongly suspect not, but that will most probably be the case well before the population hits 10 times and people will die anyway. Imagine how much a loaf of bread will cost with extremely high population? Unless you are wealthy normal food eventually won't be affordable to the average person as there simply won't be enough food or resources to go around. Then imagine our overall energy usage, okay perhaps we will use better forms of energy (that will probably be dangerous) and resolve some of this, but the prices are still more likely to go up and be non affordable by some.

All this will be the start of survival of the fittest as do you think that the millions of starving people are just going to sit there and die? No there will be extreme civil unrest and killing as people desperately fight for survival. Yes the population will reach a limit because people will be killed in other ways instead of old age and the planet will be a much more dangerous and hostile place as the population is near the higher limit. Also I still think there will be an increased risk of war as countries also fight over limited resources and there will be civil wars too, all this will also create more death in other ways, but it could also ultimately cause an apocalypse.

I must point out that you're ignoring the development of other technology; we're developing cheaper and cheaper means to get to space and perhaps make us multi-planetary species. Even then, automation and other developments will eventually make the cost of needs almost negligible, and even today the biggest reason why world hunger is still a thing is that we're not getting the food to the people that need it in the first place.
Many populations in developed countries are slowing down, with birth rates getting lower and lower, almost around just 1 baby per household, and all countries eventually reach this point. Seriously, I don't think we'll be reaching 70 billion anytime soon. Besides, if we take the 7 billion people on Earth and fit them in a city with the population density of New York City, we'd all fit in a city the size of Texas. Seriously, there is more than enough space, if we're willing (See the videos below), and even then there're still efforts being made today to colonize space. We've still got a lot of time before the population gets ridiculous. I'd put global warming as more immediate threat (just how I think, didn't quite look up resources for this bit).

Vsauce's Video (see the around the 1:20 mark and beyond):

SciShow's Video (can't quite remember exactly why, but more context is always fun):

 

[wight]

Sometime, maybe, decades from now... technology will [insert hopeless optimism]. Boring, at best. Specious unfounded idealism at worst. The end of aging, cold fusion, colonizing the moon, true artificial intelligence, robot armies, blah blah blah.

We are no closer to any of this than we were 40 years ago when they first start in on this nonsense.

 

[Accelerator]

Sometime, maybe, decades from now... technology will [insert hopeless optimism]. Boring, at best. Specious unfounded idealism at worst. The end of aging, cold fusion, colonizing the moon, true artificial intelligence, robot armies, blah blah blah.

We are no closer to any of this than we were 40 years ago when they first start in on this nonsense.

Even if it is just "hopeless optimism," the fact is that while Moore's Law seems a little shaky it still holds up, and the automation is already here. Maybe the life-extension won't work, maybe it will (it not working depends on it not translating well due to some unforseen factors). Maybe the changes to society are "specious unfounded idealism," but that doesn't change the fact that people are working on this sort of technology.
Cold fusion is something we're iffy about (using Tokamaks may yield better results), colonizing the moon is something that is definitely possible but people just don't want to fund it for some reason (seriously we've had decades since we first went there and we can't try it again?), true artificial intelligence depends on your definition of "intelligence" (because they're definitely intelligent; it's sentience that's kinda iffy), and robot armies literally exist (see drones).
Sincerely, I'm morbidly curious to see the background that definitively tells you that none of this will ever be possible based on our current rates. Any kind of information that updates my knowledge of the world would be welcome.

Edit: replaced "Cold fusion is kind of a thing that isn't really possible" with "Cold fusion is something we're iffy about (using Tokamaks may yield better results)"

 

[Accelerator]

Sometime, maybe, decades from now... technology will [insert hopeless optimism]. Boring, at best. Specious unfounded idealism at worst. The end of aging, cold fusion, colonizing the moon, true artificial intelligence, robot armies, blah blah blah.

We are no closer to any of this than we were 40 years ago when they first start in on this nonsense.

Also, the obvious thing: (40 years ago)!=(Today)

 

[Joel's Hear]

Old Chinese emperor Qin wanted to live forever and spent much of his life seeking immortality. Ultimately, he decided a then newly discovered chemical now known as cyanide would give him immortality. Guess what happened.

When people get out of their heads enough to stop being so unhappy they will then not be afraid of death and all his friends. Immortality will happen then. Pjcnet, when the earth can no longer hold more people they will have evolved to be sexless like the angels. Or, they might colonize other planets in this crazily large and unknown Verse. (Shorten universe to verse and people to pole? )

 

[Accelerator]

Old Chinese emperor Qin wanted to live forever and spent much of his life seeking immortality. Ultimately, he decided a then newly discovered chemical now known as cyanide would give him immortality. Guess what happened.

When people get out of their heads enough to stop being so unhappy they will then not be afraid of death and all his friends. Immortality will happen then. Pjcnet, when the earth can no longer hold more people they will have evolved to be sexless like the angels. Or, they might colonize other planets in this crazily large and unknown Verse. (Shorten universe to verse and people to pole? )

I'd first point out that Emperor Qin didn't live in a time where medical knowledge was advanced enough to know the exact causes and processes that happen in the body (we're still working on that really). And anyway, it's not necessarily death people are scared of, it's the unknown. It's practically hardwired in us, and the only way break away from that fear is to know what's going on (good luck with that, sincerely; we're all curious to know).

When people get out of their heads enough to stop being so unhappy they will then not be afraid of death and all his friends. Immortality will happen then.

That doesn't exactly happen; you'd need to either time the development of the technology, or have it but hold it until then.

Pjcnet, when the earth can no longer hold more people they will have evolved to be sexless like the angels. Or, they might colonize other planets in this crazily large and unknown Verse. (Shorten universe to verse and people to pole? )

Can't make sense of "Pjcnet." Also, evolution is a lot more complicated than "evolving" to be sexless; it'd be more likely that the first sexless humans will be genetically engineered. They'll also be completely dependent on technology to reproduce, so I don't think it'll be a "natural" evolution sometime soon.
People to pole doesn't make much sense, because Poles exist, if not the north and south poles, then there are still the actual Polish people. Universe to 'Verse makes sense, but I prefer in the context where it's based on what franchise or whater (ex: Gundam 00 Universe to Gundam 00 'Verse, RWBY Universe to RBWY 'Verse).