Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on December 03, 2004, 05:15:44 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm
-
Yikes. I knew there was a lot of work on this happening, but I didn't think it had advanced this far.
Interesting dilemma, this. If people live to 1000, then how the hell are we going to support them? There's resource shortages as it is, with hundreds of thousands dying all the time. There's no way that this is workable without massive advances in agriculture and other areas of science. We'd have to basically shut down people's reproductive systems, or the population would grow so fast we'd have a global famine within a few years of this being made commonplace....
Personally, I wouldn't want to live to be 1000. I'd probably get really bored after a few centuries, as there'd be nothing I hadn't done. I'm all for treatments that repair damage to the body - it would mean that healthcare costs for the over-60s (or whatever) would drop dramatically, freeing up resources for younger people - but just making people live to 10-15 times their normal lifespan is just not sensible IMO, at least while we're still confined to Earth...
-
Wow, that's awesome. 20 or so years, they say, before we can live to be about 1000?
-
Cool, I might actually be able to get some projects finished....
-
I don't know about living to 1000, but I definitely like the idea of being able to live longer than 100 (and still be healthy and independent, that is). I don't think I'd be able to finish all my projects and things in a normal human life anyway :p
-
Awesome, my long term plan o' destruction no longer requires me to reincarnate :drevil:
-
The question is, what would you do if you get the chance to live up to a thousand :).
-
Originally posted by Cabbie
The question is, what would you do if you get the chance to live up to a thousand :).
More importantly, can anyone face up to 970-odd years of working?
-
oh Brave New World that has such people in it.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
More importantly, can anyone face up to 970-odd years of working?
Want to sign a contract? It's only for a few hundred years... :p
-
Asside from the logistical problems, living 1000 years wouldn't be boring... you could finally have the time to try to learn every language, every science, etc...
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Asside from the logistical problems, living 1000 years wouldn't be boring... you could finally have the time to try to learn every language, every science, etc...
yeah, it's only boring if you sit and do nothing. But even a normal life span is boring of you do that.
Think of the advancements you'll see. You'll most likely see the day where every man woman and child can go to Mars for the holiday. or have awesome holodecks ala ST ;7
-
this would probly cause a surge in productivity, sence people would no longer die after spending much of there lives lerning the skills of a career.
-
I don't think even living to 1000 is worth it....what IS worth it is living to 100 and still being as resiliant and strong as you are at 21. Not that being 21 is really that magic...but it seems to be the best balance between youthfulness and mental development (for men anyways - females its a different story).
The other thing being that if everyone lives to 1000 then we have a population problem that would need solving.
-
Well, the idea is that you'll never age because of the medical 'repair' work done to keep you in order... i.e. you'll basically remain about 20-odd years old for your entire life.
-
I really doubt living to 1000 is possible in our terms that is one hell of a long time to be kickin around. He doesnt seem to have any evidence to show how you can stop aging because the causes of it are still unknown. If he had a hypothetical procedure to support his idea then I would take this guy's claims seriously.
I could see living up to the ripe old age of 250 but that's a long way away (maybe our great grandkids will live that long)
I will bet, however that we could push the average age up to 100 within our lifespan.
-
i would love to live that long
-
IF you don't like it, refuse the treatment. Or just jump from a bridge over highway after a few centuries :p
-
Indeed, however, unless people who have this treatment are willing to undergo sterilisation or some other such thing at the same time, it could, as has been said, cause severe societal problems. Also, I can very very easily see any kind of 'Elixir of Immortality' kicking us joyfully off into another War ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Also, I can very very easily see any kind of 'Elixir of Immortality' kicking us joyfully off into another War ;)
Bullets will still kill you, you know :p It just prevents aging for a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy long time.
I'm going to start an Ent fan club.
YES! We should all talk old-Entish when we get this anti-aging cure. :D
-
*suddenly thinks of something and cues Queen - Who wants to live forevere?*
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Bullets will still kill you, you know :p It just prevents aging for a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy long time.
I'm going to start an Ent fan club.
YES! We should all talk old-Entish when we get this anti-aging cure. :D
personally i'd learn Noldorin and Sindarin, and get my ears reshaped :D
(after the comma is a joke - before is not)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
*suddenly thinks of something and cues Queen - Who wants to live forevere?*
*fires up "Princes of the Universe" and grabs katana*
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
:p
-
*scoups up his katanas and goes akimbo*
-
Originally posted by Clave
Cool, I might actually be able to get some projects finished....
WORD. :nod:
-
Yep, my Pacman Total Conversion for Doom 3 is taking place in my mind as we speak...
-
That would be cool :D
-
Bit dark, though.
How about a Frogger TC for half life 2 - with havok physics for the floaty logs?
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
If people live to 1000, then how the hell are we going to support them?
A lot of you are not going to subscribe to this, but we've already been told what our maximum lifespan is.
Book of Genesis, Chapter 6, verse 3
3: Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.
God made a subtle change to us after we had spead across the Earth following the Original Sin and the Casting Out from the Garden at Eden. The sons of Adam lived for so many hundreds of years because they had to in order to spread across the Earth. Remember, if the Earth was truly uninhabited, save for Adam and his kin, it would have taken lifetimes of that span to fill the Earth. This verse immeadeately follows the geneology from Adam to Noah. This was also the time of the Nephalim, or men of renown. It was likely done to prevent the Nephalim from becoming the Norm as they interbred with human women.
Originally posted by pyro-manic
There's resource shortages as it is, with hundreds of thousands dying all the time.
No, there are distribution problems, such as political tension and economics preventing shipment and clan/religious hatred and petty warlords preventing delivery once it's in country. There's a major difference between a shortage and distribution problems.
-
Meh, don't go there with the religion stuff, we're trying to avoid that remember ;)
As for the rest, living to 1000 is all well and good, but it is true that we don't even have the facilities to cope with people who get to as old as 80 ;)
-
Lib - if we were to raise living standards of everyone on the planet to the European average, we'd need 6 Earths to support them all (or something like that - can't remember the exact figures). True, solving distribution and sharing problems would go a long way to solving current problems, but it wouldn't be enough. However, it is posible to re-distribute resources so that everyone gets a fair share, and a good standard of living. However, that isn't possible, what with people being greedy bastards.
As for the 120-year span thing, that sounds like a reasonable time. If everybody lived properly healthily, and didn't muck about with their bodies, they could easily reach 100 and beyond.
(NB: the "hundreds of thousands dying" thing refers to all deaths on the planet, not just early or unnatural ones)
-
It is possible for the Earth to support us all. It would actually mean a large increase in the standard of living for a large percentage of the planet. Problem is, it would mean a notable drop in the standard of living in the only people that could make it happen. Therefore, it won't :(
-
Originally posted by Liberator
A lot of you are not going to subscribe to this, but we've already been told what our maximum lifespan is.
God made a subtle change to us after we had spead across the Earth following the Original Sin and the Casting Out from the Garden at Eden. The sons of Adam lived for so many hundreds of years because they had to in order to spread across the Earth. Remember, if the Earth was truly uninhabited, save for Adam and his kin, it would have taken lifetimes of that span to fill the Earth. This verse immeadeately follows the geneology from Adam to Noah. This was also the time of the Nephalim, or men of renown. It was likely done to prevent the Nephalim from becoming the Norm as they interbred with human women.
No, there are distribution problems, such as political tension and economics preventing shipment and clan/religious hatred and petty warlords preventing delivery once it's in country. There's a major difference between a shortage and distribution problems.
Of course, virtually no-one even gets to 100 (and not in one piece), and the oldest person ever lived to 122.......and isn't Methuselah aged 969 in the Bible?
Er, aside from theological matters & the impending thread doom they present (eep), it's hard to see how you could fit everyone onto the surface of the planet without destroying it.... pollution, resource shortages (and there most definately would be), deforestation, etc.
On the other hand, think how much you'd be able to see during your lifetime.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
A lot of you are not going to subscribe to this, but we've already been told what our maximum lifespan is....
Now don't start to ****ing whine when people bash you for your religious statements. This subject has nothing to do whatsoever with religion, and still you have to bring something religious up. I'm getting real tired of this.
-
I will go with what some said above, if you lived to be 1000 things would be boring, plus if any of your loved ones die you would have to live a 1000 years and that would be torture.
And about the "no one gets to 100 in one piece" , they showed a guy in Alabama on NBC13 who was a 100, he was more healthy than most 60 year olds and could pass for a 70 year old, if I live to be a 80 or so, let me be like him or my Grandmother who is 80, and still lives by herself, plants her own garden, and still shoots animals for eating the apples of her tree. But, if I get so sick and they stick me in bed forever then I would want to die.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Now don't start to ****ing whine when people bash you for your religious statements. This subject has nothing to do whatsoever with religion, and still you have to bring something religious up. I'm getting real tired of this.
To be fair, it is mentioned (God) in the last paragraph of the linked article.
To be doubly fair, it's also pretty much dealt with there, too.
To be triply fair...er.... um... yes.
Originally posted by WeatherOp
I will go with what some said above, if you lived to be 1000 things would be boring, plus if any of your loved ones die you would have to live a 1000 years and that would be torture.
And about the "no one gets to 100 in one piece" , they showed a guy in Alabam on NBC13 who was a 100, he was more healthy than most 60 year olds and could pass for a 70 year old, if I live to be a 80 or so, let me be like him or my Grandmother who is 80, and still lives by herself, plants her own garden, and still shoots animals for eating the apples of her tree. But, if I get so sick and they stick me in bed forever then I would want to die.
Yeah, but you wouldn't choose being at that age at any other point in your life. It's a case of "'that's ok - for a 70 year old", y'know? You'll never be in the same state when you were at, say, 28.
-
Yeah, but if you got in a car wreak and got paralized when your 28, and can live to be a 1000, what would be the point in living 972 more years, don't get me wrong that it happens nowadays, but you won't have to live with that problem that long and it would drive most people insane.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
To be fair, it is mentioned (God) in the last paragraph of the linked article.
To be doubly fair, it's also pretty much dealt with there, too.
To be triply fair...er.... um... yes.
Yeah, right. My point still stands - he he doesn't want people mocking him for his views, he shouldn't post them on every single damned thread. Saying that "it will never happen because my infallible god said so" is not a worthwile, or even valid, opinion on this discussion, and he should have shut the **** up. If he wants to argue that it's not viable, or not ethical, or whatever, be my guest.
-
In before the lock!
-
hehehehe Well, in all fairness Styxx is right, if you don't want to have to defend your views, then don't throw them at people ;) I've made views that were wrong before, and been forced to alter them to deal with what people on here have pointed out to me, that which don't learn, don't grow ;)
-
I'm not locking this. In fact, I fervently hope that people will not act as children and will forget the religious argument past this post. If they don't, they're asking for whatever happens to their accounts.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Now don't start to ****ing whine when people bash you for your religious statements. This subject has nothing to do whatsoever with religion, and still you have to bring something religious up. I'm getting real tired of this.
Styxx, he didn't do it purely for the sake of bringing up religion. What he quoted was, I think, while a religious quote, a pretty fair guess at the upper limit for a natural human lifespan, so it is relevant, and nobody's bashed him for it yet. If he went off on one about how this is going against God and whatever, then that'd be fine. But he didn't. I think that's a bit harsh.
WeatherOp and Aldo: That's a very good point. The problem is trhat currently people are living into their 80s, but they're in a dreadful state by the time they die - all kinds of conditions and diseases that mean they're basically sitting around waiting to die. I think that the most important application of this technology is raising the quality of life of old people, so that they're not simply decaying slowly.
-
We'll this is that kind of thread. The person who made this thread knew this would probly happen. See, here is how we avoid the flameup. Lib put in his view, now if someone else wanted to put in his view and explaned his point of view was different and wouldn't get angry or start calling each other names, than it would not flameup. But, Styxx if you keep posting things like that it will flame, and flame hot.
-
Hmmmm.... but wording is everything ;)
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Styxx, he didn't do it purely for the sake of bringing up religion. What he quoted was, I think, while a religious quote, a pretty fair guess at the upper limit for a natural human lifespan, so it is relevant, and nobody's bashed him for it yet. If he went off on one about how this is going against God and whatever, then that'd be fine. But he didn't. I think that's a bit harsh.
Yes, he did. His post did nothing but state "what the bible says", adding nothing whatsoever to the argument. And it was just a matter of time before someone bashed him for it, and he knew it when he posted it.
Originally posted by WeatherOp
We'll this is that kind of thread. The person who made this thread knew this would probly happen. See, here is how we avoid the flameup. Lib put in his view, now if someone else wanted to put in his view and explaned his point of view was different and wouldn't get angry or start calling each other names, than it would not flameup. But, Styxx if you keep posting things like that it will flame, and flame hot.
No, this is a thread about a possible breakthrough on anti-aging treatments. The fact that he has to post his religious view, instead of his view on anti-aging treatments, shows it all. And it would turn into flames as soon as one of his "traditional" oppositors decided to post.
Now stop this. I'll delete any further post regarding this discussion.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Yeah, but if you got in a car wreak and got paralized when your 28, and can live to be a 1000, what would be the point in living 972 more years, don't get me wrong that it happens nowadays, but you won't have to live with that problem that long and it would drive most people insane.
*cough* stem cells *cough, cough*
-
If we managed to re-arrange DNA to the point where it could replace dead or dying cells with new ones etc for 1000 years, I suspect we would be at such a stage where spinal injuries etc could be treated effectively. Personally, I think this guy is pretty far ahead of himself, looking at that beard, he likes a bit of attention though ;)
-
I think that's a good point. Younger people with problems/injuries should take priority over the OAPs for treatment. Stem cells would, I assume, play a major role in this tech...
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
WeatherOp and Aldo: That's a very good point. The problem is trhat currently people are living into their 80s, but they're in a dreadful state by the time they die - all kinds of conditions and diseases that mean they're basically sitting around waiting to die. I think that the most important application of this technology is raising the quality of life of old people, so that they're not simply decaying slowly.
Well, i think the point is delaying or even stopping the aging process... otherwise, I think it'd be pretty much a living hell to spend 900 extra years as an 80-year old.
I'd be happy to spend another 20 years being the 'age' I am today, to be honest. We don't get long at our peak years.......
-
One thought that occurs to me is 'What about brain cells themselves?'. Theres no mechanism in DNA for replacing brain cells, they die constantly as time goes by. So unless they somehow find a way of stimulating growth mechanisms that only occur something like 3 months into pregnancy, a 1000 year-old man may well be extremely stupid or even fail to function entirely.
-
living to 1000 would be cool
-
Yea, well, it wasn't in our "design" to fly, it wasn't in our "design" to travel 2000 feet underwater, it wasn't in our "design" to defeat smallpox.
The greatness of humanity is its ability to reach past its "design" to accomplish our goals.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
but we will never be able to extend past 120 years.
Eh? Since when did you become omniscient? :confused:
-
Think about criminals who would get a life term sentence! Poor bastards...
-
Bloody good deterrent, if you ask me. The thought of a few centuries of man-love from Big Dave in the showers would put anyone off. :nervous:
-
Isn't the life sentence for "the rest of your natural lives"?
-
I say re-introduce hard labour, make criminals work to make the lives of us goody goodies nicer ;)
-
Regardless of the overt religous context of Liberator's post, it does bring up an interesting example of pretty much the only historical account (if you believe it, that is) of what happens to people when they live for such long periods of time.
Having over 10 children seemed not to be unusual, for one.
-
Actually, having over ten children wasn't all that uncommon 2-3 generations ago, my Grandad was one of 12.
That was why I suggested something like sterilisation for those that undergo the treatment, for two reasons, one, because of the millions of kids syndrome and two, because if we are screwing around with peoples DNA to such an enormous extent, I think we have a responsibility to not allow that DNA to reproduce, since we don't know what the long term effects might be.
-
You know, there's a pretty simple way to handle it.
The problem with us having 1000 year lifespans is we breed so damned fast. Offer up a trade. Extended life in exchange for sterility :). Feasable?
-
9/10's of the world would scream atrocity. Humans seem to think they have a right to reproduce and anything that interferes with that right is seen as evil and grotesque.
It seems like an equitable trade: 10+ lifetimes in exchange for you're ability to have children. The problem I forsee is us somehow sterilizing the every human on the planet accidentally, unless it's surgical sterilization.
-
Well, it is one of the most basic instincts to reproduce. It's kind of hard to resist it, because it's so deeply engrained in the mind. You could take two directions: you could sterilize people through the anti-age treatment or surgically, or you could treat them to eliminate their sex drive. Neither of which will be universally accepted. It's a tricky one.
-
If this actually comes about, I would make it my life mission to eradicate the technology and anyone who knows how to duplicate it.
Doesn't anyone think this is a horrible, terrible thing? The entire human identity, since the first time we rubbed two sticks together has been definded by our relative lifespan. Age is the great equalizer. You can be the richest man or the poorest man, powerful or powerless, regardless of religion, nationality, skin colour, gender or whatever else, everyone lives for about the same amount of the time. Like I said, the great equalizer.
Eliminate ageing/dying, and all of humanity gets turned sideways. Society would be changed in a million tiny, but significant ways, which you don't really notice unless you stop to think about it.
Aldous Huxley must be spinning in his grave.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
If this actually comes about, I would make it my life mission to eradicate the technology and anyone who knows how to duplicate it.
Doesn't anyone think this is a horrible, terrible thing? The entire human identity, since the first time we rubbed two sticks together has been definded by our relative lifespan. Age is the great equalizer. You can be the richest man or the poorest man, powerful or powerless, regardless of religion, nationality, skin colour, gender or whatever else, everyone lives for about the same amount of the time. Like I said, the great equalizer.
Eliminate ageing/dying, and all of humanity gets turned sideways. Society would be changed in a million tiny, but significant ways, which you don't really notice unless you stop to think about it.
Aldous Huxley must be spinning in his grave.
An equalizer it may be, but somehow I'd rather just not die. Besides which, the poorer people tend to die earlier anyways (lack of nutrition, living conditions, even the cost of medicine in non National Health countries).
-
Uh huh, but the relative lifespan is still more or less the same.
How would you feel about the rich living to be 950, while the poor die at 40? If you think that life-extension would result in greater equality, you are wrong, so very wrong.
-
Well, frankly, I don't really give a ****.
With regards to my life, I'd be quite happy with another few decades of youth. If that puts me in an 'elite' class, then fair enough.
-
The thing is, do you think these treatments will be cheap, or widely available? They won't, at least at first, that was what I meant by the fact it will throw mankind into another War ;)
-
I basicly go's like this "The Rich Get Richer, The Poor Get Poorer".
-
Originally posted by Flipside
The thing is, do you think these treatments will be cheap, or widely available? They won't, at least at first, that was what I meant by the fact it will throw mankind into another War ;)
Which will clear up a lot of space for the longevity-treated people. Y'see, there's a logic behind it ;) :D
NB: there's a rebuttal linked on the bottom of that article by another scientist.
-
This isn't about equality or whatever, this is about giving the finger to tens of thousands of years of human evolution, thought, society and well, life.
Take away age as a factor, and everything changes.
-
But, what if you're on the side that goes to war? Not Good then
-
I don't see evolution as nature's "intent." It's just cause/effect, like everything else. So by that token, I don't find anything "wrong" with this because there's no such thing as going against nature; what happens happens.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
This isn't about equality or whatever, this is about giving the finger to tens of thousands of years of human evolution, thought, society and well, life.
Take away age as a factor, and everything changes.
Meh. We do that all the time, anyways. I would not trade my lifespan - be it 40, 70, or 1000 years for anything. I'm sorry if I'm being a selfish bastard over that, but it's true.
I'm not going to sit here and lie and say "yeah, I'd like to live as a 21-year old for an age, but only if everyone can". i'm well aware of the philosophical issues and whatnot.
-
Liberator, mankind will live longer than 120 years old...
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/gwr5/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=48373
Unless by man you really mean man (as in male human). :nervous: ;)
-
I would sit here and say I'd only do it if it was available to anyone who wanted it.
-
Wait till you're older, then you will trample over your own mother to get hold of it...:p
-
Heh, my mother would elbow me in the groin in the rush ;)
-
rictor what gives you the right to do any such thing?
if you even attempt that you're just as bad as the christofascists
-
It would completely change humanity in a very short space of time. That would lead to all kinds of problems, which would mean the suffering of millions. If this is ever possible, there will have to be massive changes in society's attitudes to all areas of life, which takes a long time to accomplish. If it was to be introduced at all, it would have to be over a long period of time, so that each generation lived slightly longer than the last. That way, you would have time to gauge the effects, and bring population growth under control so that a food crisis didn't occur.
-
(Thinks of that movie Logan's Run, where they kill everyone over 30)
-
And each generation are going to be resentful of the next, because they will live longer, individual humans wouldn't be prepared to make that sacrifice for the good of the race, they don't think like that. To introduce it now would result in instant War, I can promise you that, because it would, as it were, draw the final line between the haves and have-nots.
-
Alos, If this goes world wide, it means you will have to deal with people like Bin Laden, since he would also live 1000 years, unless he shoves his finger to far up his nose and dies.
-
*withhold the treatment*
It's that simple...
-
But, back in the 50's they found out how to use a nuclear bomb, how long would it someone like Russia to copy it. I mean if someone overhere had it done to them, and then Russia offered them 10 million bucks to use them for tests to find out how we did, don't you think they would take it?
-
Thing is, if this were to arise, it would probably be in the US or Europe first, no doubt if one achieved it, it wouldn't be long till the other did.
Now, America and Europe are not going to be likely to export this treatment do less wealthy countries for two reasons.
1: No money there.
2: Why would you want to risk people who actively dislike you getting a 1000 year lifespan.
Now, the thing about item 2 is that the risk is around 1 in every million people in the third world have either positive or negative opinions of the US, but that will be enough to warrant witholding the treatment.
So, we now have a situation where a small section of the world is enjoying the benefits of technology and long-life whilst a large proportion of it are living short and difficult lives. It won't take long for that to boil over into something no-one could handle.
-
Rictor, it's happening already. Medicine and medical tech extends peoples' lives to beyond what they were generations ago. Some of this is only available to the wealthy (particularly in the USA). I'm not opposed to this in general (Not talking about healthcare systems, talking about extending lifetimes).
And what's with so many people thinking life would be boring if it lasted a long time? I'd love that chance. A chance to get a fraction closer to reading all the books I want to read, or to see if they ever prove the Riemann Hypothesis. If you don't think you could find things to be fascinated about during a thousand years that's pretty sad outlook on life.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
rictor what gives you the right to do any such thing?
if you even attempt that you're just as bad as the christofascists
I understand Rictors point; firstly it's a complete paradigm shift to effectively increase human lifespan by a factor of 10 - who knows what the social effects will be? Secondly, most new treatments are expensive and restricted to the most fortunate.... do we want an 'elite' class which lives decades or even centuries longer than the rest of humanity? And what would it do to the 'impetus' that drives many to create and do great things?
I think it is a valid issue to consider. But I wouldn't turn down said treatment on this principle - like I said, I'm selfish. :D
-
Well, one thing it probably wouldn't do is cause a rapid advance in technology, as most breakthroughs are made by people in their 20s and early 30s.
-
I, personally, would love it, just to see the changes that would occur in the future. It would be like heaven on Earth for me :)
-
I would be purtty neat to se what aircraft they come out with. But, the Cons really outweigh the Pros. The big issue like said so many times is over reprouduce.
-
Well, if some scientists get their way, there's at last a small portion of people we wouldn't have to worry about. Namely, the ones who get to go to Mars....
-
Grey Wolf, about research, wouldn't the longer life expectancy increase the amount of researchers and their "duration" (yeah, crude term :p ), which would lead to more technological discoveries over the same period of time? In other words, rapid advance in tech?
-
I was speaking more on the lines of sudden breakthroughs. Gradual evolution of technology would increase though, assuming a larger number of researchers.
-
I'm not sure I'd want to live that long...
-
Grey Wolf has a point, every major invention of the last 20-30 years has been done by someone in their early to mid-20s. Steve Jobs and The Woz, George Lucas, Bill Gates, you get the picture. Inventors later in life as too stuck in their ways to make major breakthroughs, Thomas Edison was the last one that wasn't that I know of, him or Tesla.
-
Actually studies on folks like that show that while they make their big breakthrough when young, every 20 years or so they make their follow up breakthroughs, which are more taken for granted since they're already famous.
The trick with folks like Einstein, Shakespeare, and such is that they operated in their own way regardless of society as a whole. Immortality wouldn't change that, it'd just give 'em more time.
There is the problem of obsolete ideas surviving a long time. If anything conflicts might wind up becoming literal ideological revolutions as people kill or exile viewed threats to their groups.