RAR: Immortality at the price of fertility

[biostem]

Imagine that a process was developed which allowed one to be immortal and ageless, (but you could still be killed by a gunshot to the head or such, though you will fully recover from any non-fatal injury, eventually). The catch is, this process only works if performed before the onset of puberty, (the subject will still mature as normal afterward), and renders the subject completely sterile. Additionally, the process is available to everyone, but only works if the subject freely chooses to have the operation - you cannot drug someone to accept it, and it does not work if the subject is under duress, (so even if you threatened someone's family or loved ones, lest they accept the procedure, it still wouldn't work, even if they relented).

Do you think a large portion of the population would accept this? Since it renders the subject sterile, would a push be made to develop human cloning, using other cellular material? Would a "breeding class" be encouraged to persist, along with one of immortals? Would the government or other agency step in to try and limit availability of this treatment, (assume it is known across the world, and not just available from 1 source).

What are your thoughts?

[TheFeniX]

In any civilization that protects their minors, this would create a whole new level of legal and moral ambiguity. A prepubescent child lacks the capacity to make such a decision since the consequences of infertility won't mean much to them. Nor the consequences of immortality. At some point: they'll either have to deal with living forever, accidents aside, or kill themselves somehow. That's not a responsibility you can dump off on a child, since "hey kid, wanna live forever?" is about the most one-sided question you could ask a kid.

And no society concerned with personal rights should allow parents to make this decision for the child.

[Joun_Lord]

Pretty much as the above. Society goes into enough of a hissy fit over just circumcision and ear piercing. Both of which can be considered fucked up to force on a child, neither (usually) impede reproduction.

I could see parents attempting to force this on there kids though. Rich people especially would want their little brats to live forever. If its illegal in the West there would probably be 3rd world countries performing the procedure in kind of a different twist on parents taking their kids to 3rd world to have illegal medical procedures forced on their children.

Kids would probably be suing the fuck out of parents about being force to live pretty much forever, unable to have children or end their miserable existence without ventilating their skulls.

Rich people would probably also see about using cloning to give themselves immortal bodies. Clone themselves, let the body grow to before puberty and then do the procedure. They scoop the original brain out and stick theirs in either before if they can (assuming an adult brain doesn't effect the process) or after.

Might be parents who force their kids to take those drugs that delay puberty that gymnasts take so their kids can still have the procedure when they hit 18.

I know one thing is that this would piss off alot of people. Only young children can be immortal, everyone else is fucked. There would probably be protests and violence towards these immortal brats by people angry and jealous and fearful of what they represent. Everyone else dies, they live. Everyone else only lives so long while they can live forever barring accident. People would be afraid of these immortal people accumulating power and wealth over centuries to where they become rules of the people too old and too poor to afford the procedure. Fear that the procedure would be limited to only the wealthy so the "peons" could still reproduce and be many to serve their "superiors".

There would probably be some research into the procedure to see if it can be tricked with hormones but considering it sounds like magic with the consent bit, that probably wouldn't work.

[Purple]

Why do you assume it would suck to live forever but have no children? It sounds like a relatively harmless tradeoff to me. I'd make it in an instant if I weren't too old.

[AniThyng]

Why do you assume it would suck to live forever but have no children? It sounds like a relatively harmless tradeoff to me. I'd make it in an instant if I weren't too old.

A "harmless" tradeoff only if you were the only person involved. That you make the decision so easily probably sounds like a good reason to deny you the decision.

In any case, it does mean it must royally suck to potentially be able to live forever but die at 24 because you slipped on the driveway.

[Adrian McNair]

Why do you assume it would suck to live forever but have no children? It sounds like a relatively harmless tradeoff to me. I'd make it in an instant if I weren't too old.

I couldn't agree more. That doesn't sound like a penalty to me at all. In fact, given that I have absolutely no interest in starting a family at all, it would in fact be a major incentive. The chance to have casual sex without the possibility of fathering children? You had me at immortality, friend. That's just the icing on the cake. Plus on the incredibly remote, infinitesimal chance that I ever wanted to have children I could always take the adoption route. Of course I'm only speaking from my perspective. At a societal scale I can't see this being viable.

Alas, I also fall under the criteria of being too old. That's the only actual downside I can see here. In this hypothetical the choice is taken away from the individual and placed in the hands of the parents.

[bilateralrope]

Why do you assume it would suck to live forever but have no children? It sounds like a relatively harmless tradeoff to me. I'd make it in an instant if I weren't too old.

I can see why you would think that. You should be able to see why other people would have a difference of opinion to you about that choice.

The problem is that anyone who can have immortality applied to them is so young that society doesn't consider them capable of making an informed decision about a lot of things. Contracts, sex, etc. But if they can't decide for themselves on those matters, there is no way they would be able to decide for themselves on this matter. Someone is going to make that decision for them.

So how would you decide who becomes immortal and who gets to have children ?

Me, I'd want to treat everyone equally. Which means my choices are every child become immortal, or none of them do. Which means none of them do, as I'm not willing to wipe out humanity.

[Purple]

I can see why you would think that. You should be able to see why other people would have a difference of opinion to you about that choice.

Absolutely. I understand that not everyone would want to take it. I am just surprised that anyone would go to the extreme of saying that it is a miserable existence that they'd want to end by ventilating their skulls. I don't even want to go into the whole choice thing.

[LaCroix]

Assuming medicine continues evolving as it did, I can't see why they can't (eventually pre-procedure harvested) stemcells or normal cells to extract DNA and use a arteficial insemination procedure to let you still have children.

Yep, one quick google search shows they can already do that for sperm and eggs.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... sperm-eggs

Thus, if you get the procedure, you will get imortality, and protection from procreational mishaps, while still being able to get children.

So I can't see a reason to refuse children this beneficial treatment.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Yeah I was wondering that. Sterile implies you can't conceive, but does this immortality process remove a woman's ability to carry a foetus to term? If it doesn't stop that, then have eggs and sperm removed and frozen before the procedure begins and do pregnancies by IVF later when people want kids. This eliminates unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, the whole abortion issue dissappears because only wanter pregnancies can occur. And, if it's being done by IVF, you can only chose to use zygotes that aren't carrying genes for debilitiating conditions, which will save a fuckton of mental anguish and medical costs down the line.

So, unless this immortality serum actually prevents a woman from carrying a baby to term, there really isn't a downside. Especially as it is still possible to die if you really dont want to live past several centuries.

[Borgholio]

So, unless this immortality serum actually prevents a woman from carrying a baby to term, there really isn't a downside. Especially as it is still possible to die if you really dont want to live past several centuries.

Well even then you could either hire someone who chose mortality to be a surrogate mother, or wait until artificial wombs are developed.

[Eternal_Freedom]

That works too. At any rate, I can see harvesting eggs and sperm and then freezing them to become a standard pre-immortality-serum procedure. Hell, you might as well harvest all of them (for the eggs) nd as much of the sperm as possible, since it won't have any other use.

[Borgholio]

Actually wait, that won't work. If this can only happen pre-puberty, can viable sperm and eggs be harvested when you're that young?

[Eternal_Freedom]

IIRC eggs can be, they're there from birth. Sperm, I'm not so sure. But if all else fails, you can just wait until medical science advances to the point where they can fertilise an egg with some other male cell, not just a sperm.

[TheFeniX]

I can see why you would think that. You should be able to see why other people would have a difference of opinion to you about that choice.

Absolutely. I understand that not everyone would want to take it. I am just surprised that anyone would go to the extreme of saying that it is a miserable existence that they'd want to end by ventilating their skulls. I don't even want to go into the whole choice thing.

There's nothing miserable about it. Life just gets boring after a while and the longer lived you are, the harder it is to assimilate new information and form emotional connections. At some point, time is going to be flying by so fast for you, only other immortals are going to be worth your time to bother with. Even then, what are you going to socialize about? At some point, enough will be enough. Knowing I'm going to die is both comforting and terrifying. Knowing I will not die and at some point will have to watch everyone I know and love grow old, while I stay young, then die, while I live on isn't a much better scenario. Knowing that I'd have to manually put myself down doesn't help. You'd almost have to form mini-societies of immortals just to keep them engaged enough to bother with anything relevant.

Not to say people wouldn't gladly make that "sacrifice," but that's not a decision minors, especially children, should have to make. We're talking about kids at an age where leaving them home alone unsupervised is potentially dangerous.

That works too. At any rate, I can see harvesting eggs and sperm and then freezing them to become a standard pre-immortality-serum procedure. Hell, you might as well harvest all of them (for the eggs) nd as much of the sperm as possible, since it won't have any other use.

Ah yes, putting prepubescent children through surgery to prep them for a life they can't even comprehend yet is the ultimate goal every parent should aspire to. Egg harvesting on grown women is moderately invasive, I can only wonder how much worse it is on an 8-year-old.

[Purple]

Absolutely. I understand that not everyone would want to take it. I am just surprised that anyone would go to the extreme of saying that it is a miserable existence that they'd want to end by ventilating their skulls. I don't even want to go into the whole choice thing.

There's nothing miserable about it. Life just gets boring after a while and the longer lived you are, the harder it is to assimilate new information and form emotional connections. At some point, time is going to be flying by so fast for you, only other immortals are going to be worth your time to bother with. Even then, what are you going to socialize about? At some point, enough will be enough.[/quote]
You can always find new stuff to do. Or hell just rehash old stuff. A century or two of hedonism and sex orgies followed maybe by a millennia of asceticism. Why would that be anything but ecstatic? And hell, even if life becomes an endless stream of boredom you are still alive.

Knowing I'm going to die is both comforting and terrifying.

What could possibly be comforting about it? It's just terrifying!

Knowing I will not die and at some point will have to watch everyone I know and love grow old, while I stay young, then die, while I live on isn't a much better scenario.

You can meet new people. Or just not form lasting attachments with mortals. Ever human today suffers from the same condition anyway (we know our parents won't outlive us) and we cope.

Knowing that I'd have to manually put myself down doesn't help.

Strangely enough I do not feel the same way. In fact I'd rather it be down to me, my choosing and ultimately my action than to time or random chance.

You'd almost have to form mini-societies of immortals just to keep them engaged enough to bother with anything relevant.

And that is a bad thing?

Not to say people wouldn't gladly make that "sacrifice," but that's not a decision minors, especially children, should have to make. We're talking about kids at an age where leaving them home alone unsupervised is potentially dangerous.

There is a twofold argument here.
1. This is or is not something that is perfect, ideal, magically and that every sane man should desire.
2. This is an ethical question about consent.

I do not want to touch #2 with a 40 meter pole.

[bilateralrope]

Assuming medicine continues evolving as it did, I can't see why they can't (eventually pre-procedure harvested) stemcells or normal cells to extract DNA and use a arteficial insemination procedure to let you still have children.

Yep, one quick google search shows they can already do that for sperm and eggs.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... sperm-eggs

Thus, if you get the procedure, you will get imortality, and protection from procreational mishaps, while still being able to get children.

So I can't see a reason to refuse children this beneficial treatment.

What about people who get the treatment as children, grow up, and are then unable to afford the treatment you mention ?
Because I see no mention of cost in that article.

Though if that treatment is cheap enough that the population can be sustained, then giving immortality to everyone becomes an option. Though with people dying less, any working fertility treatment would probably be restricted to prevent overpopulation. So there is a new question: How does the government decide which couples get to have children ?
How do you avoid the temptation of a eugenics program ?

Well even then you could either hire someone who chose mortality to be a surrogate mother, or wait until artificial wombs are developed.

Correction. Hire someone who, as a child, had someone decide that they would remain fertile instead of being immortal. Which brings us back to the problem of who gets to decide if a child does or doesn't get the immortality treatment ?

Because there is going to be a divide between the fertile and the immortal. So who has the right to decide which side of that divide a child will be on ?

There is a twofold argument here.
1. This is or is not something that is perfect, ideal, magically and that every sane man should desire.
2. This is an ethical question about consent.

I do not want to touch #2 with a 40 meter pole.

I don't see how any discussion of this immortality issue is possible without covering the consent issue.

[Purple]

I don't see how any discussion of this immortality issue is possible without covering the consent issue.

I do not see how you concluded I wanted one. The discussion I want is on how pleasurable or torturing the end results of the treatment are to the human condition. I am not one to discuss morality.

[TheFeniX]

You can always find new stuff to do. Or hell just rehash old stuff. A century or two of hedonism and sex orgies followed maybe by a millennia of asceticism. Why would that be anything but ecstatic? And hell, even if life becomes an endless stream of boredom you are still alive.

I'm sorry, what exactly stops me from engaging in a life of hedonism and sex in a world where condoms and the morning-after pill exist? Do immortals now not have to hold a job and contribute to society?

And said immortals will have to continue to contribute more as they will never physically age. Not to mention what happens to the human brain when the hormones never wear off until they die.

What could possibly be comforting about it? It's just terrifying!

Then you've never met someone who just cashed their chips in. My grandmother lived through WW2, raised two kids, got to see more than a few great-grand-kids grow up, and lived to to see her husband and about 99% of her friends buried.

She was done. She just wanted to sit in her chair, drink wine, and watch Price is Right. Me taking her out for dinners and some movies was, by her admission, for my benefit, not hers. She didn't last more than a few months in that state. My mother's mom was in the same boat. Many friends dead, husband buried: she existed in a semi-catatonic state for a few months before she finally cashed out.

By the doctors own admission, while they were old, there was no reason they couldn't have lived much longer.

You can meet new people. Or just not form lasting attachments with mortals. Ever human today suffers from the same condition anyway (we know our parents won't outlive us) and we cope.

Yes, over the course of a standard human life-span. Time isn't a static concept to people. There's a lot of reading on this. As we grow older, our brain's perception of time changes. The drive to our new neighborhood when I was 9 was excruciatingly long.... it was 30 minutes. Now I drive hours on end with no issue. There's a reason the old "are we there yet" joke exists with kids: because time lasts forever for them while weeks and months blend together as we get older.

Also, ever notice how adults can't relate to kids all that well? That's just the way we're wired. Now imagine you're 100 years-old and look like a kid fresh out of high school. That's a whole other bag of cats to contend with as people tend to equate age with experience.

Strangely enough I do not feel the same way. In fact I'd rather it be down to me, my choosing and ultimately my action than to time or random chance.

To each his own. But you have that option right now. What you don't have in the OP is a choice: someone else would have to chose for you and no one should have that right.

You'd almost have to form mini-societies of immortals just to keep them engaged enough to bother with anything relevant.

And that is a bad thing?

Yea, a group of immortals only associating with each other would go over real well for the rest of the populace.

Not to say people wouldn't gladly make that "sacrifice," but that's not a decision minors, especially children, should have to make. We're talking about kids at an age where leaving them home alone unsupervised is potentially dangerous.

There is a twofold argument here.
1. This is or is not something that is perfect, ideal, magically and that every sane man should desire.
2. This is an ethical question about consent.

I do not want to touch #2 with a 40 meter pole.

Well, I'm basically at saying male circumcision should be flat-out illegal because it's cosmetic surgery for babies. So, you could never convince me forcing immortality and infertility on children should be legal. Even if you can't see the drawbacks to immortality, they are there.

[Joun_Lord]

Why do you assume it would suck to live forever but have no children? It sounds like a relatively harmless tradeoff to me. I'd make it in an instant if I weren't too old.

It wouldn't suck forever alone just because you have no children. Children are of course part of it. There is a natural drive in most humans to pop out babies left and right. The older someone gets the more they will look wistfully back on what could have been, about starting a family and not living to 200. I don't want children, I think I'd make a terrible father and I know my DNA is probably all kinds of fucked up judging from family history, but I'm not even 30 yet. I may think differently when I'm 40 or 50 but maybe not. But thats the thing, if my parents had made me immortal back when Micheal Jackson was still black even though now I say I don't want children I would not have a choice in the matter beyond adoption.

And thats one of the main things about it, choice. You and I can say "Nah fuck having children mang, don't need none of that crap brodo!" because you are old enough (I assume) to make that decision as I am (I assume). Some 8 or 10 or 12 year old kid won't be able to make that same decision. Even if they could its not like there parents or guardians are actually going to listen. Thus you have some immortal fuck who was robbed of that ability and may bee a wee bit perturbed about it. Children don't even have the same concept of death and life as wee mighty adults with our full hour of swimming at public pools and ability to buy porn. When you ask them if they want to live forever, forever to them is probably 5 years.

Other problems of living forever is seeing people you love die over and over and over, running out of shit to do, and letting pre-existing mental conditions further develop. Assuming the Biostem meant the person would stop just after puberty when he said "the subject will still mature as normal afterward" as I doubt anyone would want immortality where they still age but just don't die from it, all those hormones and stuff that make teens moody bastards would still be there forever. The same hormones and shit that make them believe they are already invincible and life is meaningless.

All that depression and anger and loathing inherent to many teens wouldn't be some temporary thing. Imagine some hundred year old angry teen or some 200 year old emo kid who has been cutting their arm the whole way but just healing again and again.

Already there are massive problems of people committing suicide. Imagine the same person who might be inclined to eat a 12 gauge round, pop some pills, open their veins, do the David Carridine, or play superman off a tall building not living 60 or 70 years but possibly forever. Imagine the crippling panic and pain this person will be experiencing daily, hourly, every single fucking minute of their lives.

And they can't even commit suicide normally. Depending on how good their healing factor is jumping off a building or hanging them self might not kill them, either leave them with months or years of painful recovery so they can try it again or potentially brain damage them while leaving them very much alive. Or like most mentally ill people who don't commit suicide they would wind up destitute and alone on the streets. A eternity of digging through trashcans, muttering to yourself about shit, and trying to booze yourself to death

Centuries of being a vegetable in a hospital bed or being a street bum, that sounds fun.

Immortality has its ups and downs, especially this version with its great many drawbacks, and will effect everyone differently. Some people will think living forever with no kids is awesome, some will think its literally hell. Thus it should be the persons decision whether or not they get the treatment.

[Purple]

I'm sorry, what exactly stops me from engaging in a life of hedonism and sex in a world where condoms and the morning-after pill exist?

Nothing. But unlike an immortal you know it is going to end.

Do immortals now not have to hold a job and contribute to society?

For a while. But ultimately they have options we don't. Like spending 100 years working and living in poverty to earn capital they need to invest and become rich down the line. Or a carrier in permanent politics.

And said immortals will have to continue to contribute more as they will never physically age.

Why? They can just find ways to spend a couple of centuries getting rich.

Not to mention what happens to the human brain when the hormones never wear off until they die.

Beats death.

Then you've never met someone who just cashed their chips in. My grandmother lived through WW2, raised two kids, got to see more than a few great-grand-kids grow up, and lived to to see her husband and about 99% of her friends buried.

I had family who suffered strokes and ended up as basically delusional semi-plants. And you know what. I'd still prefer that life to death.

She was done. She just wanted to sit in her chair, drink wine, and watch Price is Right. Me taking her out for dinners and some movies was, by her admission, for my benefit, not hers. She didn't last more than a few months in that state. My mother's mom was in the same boat. Many friends dead, husband buried: she existed in a semi-catatonic state for a few months before she finally cashed out.

If it was me, I'd take those few months over instant death. In fact, I'd take immortality without youth if it came down to it. I'd happily live forever even if it means I turn into a mummy eventually, or dust. If my destiny was to become a cloud of sentient dust being blown around by wind, eternally alive but without any senses, thoughts, feelings or anything that still beats death.

Yes, over the course of a standard human life-span. Time isn't a static concept to people. There's a lot of reading on this. As we grow older, our brain's perception of time changes. The drive to our new neighborhood when I was 9 was excruciatingly long.... it was 30 minutes. Now I drive hours on end with no issue. There's a reason the old "are we there yet" joke exists with kids: because time lasts forever for them while weeks and months blend together as we get older.

Thing is, we have no way of concluding if this magical treatment would effect this and how. For all we know it might create an upper limit for this effect just as it does for others.

Also, ever notice how adults can't relate to kids all that well? That's just the way we're wired. Now imagine you're 100 years-old and look like a kid fresh out of high school. That's a whole other bag of cats to contend with as people tend to equate age with experience.

I'd wear a T shirt saying "Immortal-Generation _ _ _ _". That should do it. Seriously, you make it sound like I should care.

To each his own. But you have that option right now. What you don't have in the OP is a choice: someone else would have to chose for you and no one should have that right.

The choice issue is tricky.

Yea, a group of immortals only associating with each other would go over real well for the rest of the populace.

As long as they have plaid their cards right and amassed wealth as I described they will have power. And the populace can just cry them a river or something.

Well, I'm basically at saying male circumcision should be flat-out illegal because it's cosmetic surgery for babies. So, you could never convince me forcing immortality and infertility on children should be legal. Even if you can't see the drawbacks to immortality, they are there.

And thats the basis of it. I am glad you understand. Basically I am no fan of creating ultimate moral codes and than using them to make decisions. Instead, I look at this and ask if it is desirable. If it is, than doing things to achieve it is good. If not, than it is not.

[TheFeniX]

For a while. But ultimately they have options we don't. Like spending 100 years working and living in poverty to earn capital they need to invest and become rich down the line. Or a carrier in permanent politics.

How does one amass wealth while living in poverty? They can't skip basic needs like food and health-care. If anything, the staggering amount of shit poor people have to deal with will be compounded for them. Poor health, low food quality, likely living in high-crime and high-pollution areas. It's fucking expensive to be poor in places like America. I don't know about other countries, I'm sure it varies. But there's nothing stopping mortals from eschewing pleasure for long-term gains, except humans are fucking terrible at it. Further, an immortal thinking he has "all the time in the world" would be even less likely to aim for the long-term, at least until they are so old their skill-set is next to useless.

Why? They can just find ways to spend a couple of centuries getting rich.

How? They aren't omniscient. Take a guy from the civil war area and put him

If it was me, I'd take those few months over instant death. In fact, I'd take immortality without youth if it came down to it. I'd happily live forever even if it means I turn into a mummy eventually, or dust. If my destiny was to become a cloud of sentient dust being blown around by wind, eternally alive but without any senses, thoughts, feelings or anything that still beats death.

Not everyone feels the same way you do. In fact, the idea of living long enough to see everyone you can relate to die off is a pretty shitty concept to a lot of people. Especially when you factor in that, at some point, you're going to forget enough about your past self, you could make the argument you aren't even the same person, even with continuity of consciousness.

Yes, over the course of a standard human life-span. Time isn't a static concept to people. There's a lot of reading on this. As we grow older, our brain's perception of time changes. The drive to our new neighborhood when I was 9 was excruciatingly long.... it was 30 minutes. Now I drive hours on end with no issue. There's a reason the old "are we there yet" joke exists with kids: because time lasts forever for them while weeks and months blend together as we get older.

Thing is, we have no way of concluding if this magical treatment would effect this and how. For all we know it might create an upper limit for this effect just as it does for others.

Either way, it's going to end up with life either dragging on as you notice every day or years start just kind of floating by. Boring if you're well-off, excruciating if you lack the money for leisure time. For every person who hits it big and lives it up, there's probably 100 who will slog through a menial job for the rest of their never ending lives.

At some point, your "past self" is going to be nothing but flashbulb memories (like how I will always remember where I was when I heard about the first plane hitting the twin towers on 9/11 or how my mom remembers exactly where she was when JFK was shot). But as you care less and less about the goings-on of the short-lived little people zipping through their lives, even those are going to lose their impact.

I bring up JFK's assassination because I could see the disconnect between my mother and grand-mother. To my mother, JFK getting shot was a huge deal. My grandmother wasn't pleased about it, but her first child was born while her husband was still overseas at the end of WW2, she lived through multiple wars with propaganda video being played all the time, the cold war, and loads of other shit. So, JFK didn't mean as much to her. 9/11 barely registered. To her, it was just another group of assholes we were about to bomb into oblivion. And this was 2 years before she started her actual slide into "no fucks to give." Meanwhile, my mother doesn't rate 9/11 and the Afgan/Iraq wars all that much because she also lived through numerous wars and drills in school. Meanwhile, to my generation, 9/11 was the worst thing ever™ because many of us were in elementary school when the Berlin Wall fell.

That's just the way it works, aside from something affecting you personally (such as losing someone in the 9/11 attacks): we just stop giving a shit because we've seen it all before.

As long as they have plaid their cards right and amassed wealth as I described they will have power. And the populace can just cry them a river or something.

The immortals will not be a cohesive block according to the OP: it's available to anyone. "They" won't have power. If the wealthy decide to take this option more than the poor, your system will come into play, except that will have less to do with the immortality and more to do with who forces it on their kids. I will grant that the wealthy will have access to more loop-holes to violate their children's right to accomplish this.

And thats the basis of it. I am glad you understand. Basically I am no fan of creating ultimate moral codes and than using them to make decisions. Instead, I look at this and ask if it is desirable. If it is, than doing things to achieve it is good. If not, than it is not.

The "good" isn't set in stone for me. I can think of more than enough negatives to give me pause and I'm old enough to actually consider the consequences.

[Broomstick]

IIRC eggs can be, they're there from birth.

Except those eggs aren't mature. Egg harvesting in adult women relies on stimulating multiple eggs to maturity in vivo then harvesting them. Harvesting them pre-puberty then leaves the problem of prompting the eggs to mature in a petri dish, and I don't know if we have that tech.

[Borgholio]

So for immortals to breed, we're looking at actual gene splicing rather than conventional artificial fertilization.

[LaCroix]

So for immortals to breed, we're looking at actual gene splicing rather than conventional artificial fertilization.

OR, they can use an improved version the already present method I already posted where they turn skin cells into sperm or egg cells to use skin cells or any other body cell, and then ether carry them to term themselves, or use donor mothers.

Honestly, why are we still dicussing that part of the argument? They will be able to procreate by artificial methods. We already have most of these things covered, already, and will be able to cover all the possible infertility scenarios pretty soon if these technologies mature. Unless you think there will be no DNA left in their body after the change, which is impossible, for the human body could not exist without a DNA pattern present to base it's functions upon.

More interesting would be the question if - after the treatment edits their DNA (most likely method, as it is permanent) - this would result in all of these children automatically be immortal from conception, and whether this would also render them sterile from birth on?

To me, the first thing is most likey and the second one quite unlikely. A treatment like this would split humanity into 'homo sapiens transiens' and 'homo sapiens persistens'.

While the first gerneration of persistens could/would be sterile - most likely due to side effects on the gameta during treatment, but if you use artificial methods to let them procreate with another persistens (they should be incompatible with transiens after that), the resulting product should not have any problems procreating, unless the treatment would for some reason delete the ability to create reproductive cells from the human genome (unlikely, it will probabbly just deal with the problem of cell aging, using something from this study that implies aging is reversible) .