There is no single social contract, but if there is, it very well has to be reviewed before we "fix" mortality. And who says that the further exploration of the universe (which is happening since a few thousand years anyway) is tempting to a critical mass with an unlimited lifespan where distractions are manifold and any simulation more convenient and less dangerous than the exploration of the universe in person.

> There is no single social contract, but if there is, it very well has to be reviewed before we "fix" mortality.

Just like I said.

>any simulation more convenient and less dangerous than the exploration of the universe in person

We have been risking our lifes to explorer our world for millenniums. Why would it be different for space?

Because we have unlimited time and unlimited things to consume on earth. Who'd give a shit about what's behind the horizon?

I'm just saying the audacity to suggest to "fix" mortality is stunning. The implications are unforeseeable, on so many levels. People might not be as idealistic as you make them out to be.

> People might not be as idealistic as you make them out to be.

Well, not everyone needs to be "idealistic". There are a lot of people willing to risk their lifes just to see a little further behind the horizon. You are not one of them. And this is ok.

5 years? How do you figure that?

I think that we already have all the elements to make this leap. I am not being naive, only optimistic.

I'll be one of the first to cheer, but even with the pope and co changing their minds about what god likes and doesn't like every other year, there are billions more.

Actually, for Aubrey de Grey, that will be 50 years[1], but I think this is only to get more funds.

[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_ag...