I can understand that conservative view, and while I personally feel that &quot;not dying&quot; is obviously better than dying, one can&#x27;t deny that a lot of systems that underpin our civilization depend, implicitly or explicitly, on the fact that people generally don&#x27;t live longer than 100 years. Therefore just suddenly making people not age (or age much slower) would likely cause a very bad disruption and possibly lots of suffering. This topic needs to be discussed and &quot;detailed vision of what conquering mortality would look like&quot; needs to be specified, but personally I don&#x27;t think those issues are a showstopper, or something that should discourage us from fighting death.<p>&gt; <i>I&#x27;m not sure I agree with the idea that society accepts death and rejects accidents. Is the grief of accidental death really universally distinguishable from that of old age or illness? On both sides, you&#x27;ll have anger&#x2F;sadness it happened so soon, or reluctant acknowledgement that it was going to happen some day and we can&#x27;t predict it or prepare.</i><p>The difference is that an accident is treated as an unnecessary death. After it happens, changes are introduced to improve safety and to make sure such accident doesn&#x27;t happen again. Yet in case of aging, we&#x27;re just accepting death and moving forward, and only few of us ask how we could make so that such deaths don&#x27;t happen anymore.<p>As for your last paragraps - I don&#x27;t think that longer lifespans will necessarily make people more risk-averse than they&#x27;re already are. Why would someone choose a sheltered life having 1000 years in front of him and not choose such life having perspective for only 50 more years? I would expect people to start caring about (what we now call) long-term effects of decisions because the consequences would come within the lifetime of the decision maker.