Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, known to the general public for his aversion to religion, sees nothing in the desire of many scientists and technologists to achieve immortality. According to Dawkins, who as a biologist of course realizes the limitations of the Earth's ecosystem, immortality will lead to an ecological disaster. No immortality without stopping having children, Dawkins said. Is Dawkins right and is the pursuit of immortality a dangerous idea? Or is there a way to escape this doom scenario?
Personally, I think Dawkins certainly has a point here. Immortality in a biological sense, without ending childbirth, is a recipe for disaster. If humanity stays on the earth.
On the other hand, there are many alternative options. Colonization of space, virtual worlds, etc. We could also prohibit those who choose immortality from having children (and exclude those who have already had children from becoming immortal).
In short, the coming technology to achieve immortality will pose many ethical problems. Or will the elite decide for us, allowing only those belonging to the elite to become immortal? What do you think?