We've escaped the reign of biological evolution millennia ago. Ever since humans figured out how to learn and later write, we've been evolving society and technology orders of magnitude faster than biological evolution could ever hope to work. We are no longer bound by it. And given what's been done over the past couple decades, we're about to take control of our own genetic future as well. We will be able to repair, "update" and adapt our species' genetic makeup as we see fit, and this might actually be a prerequisite knowledge to achieving life extension.
So no, I don't think this argument for species holds either.
It must be a prerequisite for this kind of hyperbole that the technology it describes does not exist yet. Nothing is infinitely repairable or upgradeable, and neither of those things are ever free.
> Nothing is infinitely repairable or upgradeable, and neither of those things are ever free.
Well yes, there's heat death of the universe that we still have to contend with :P. But beyond that, what you wrote is not a problem. The biology itself works around it - it "repairs" by copying and checksumming, and does so using energy. It's not perfect (this is what enables evolution), but it's perfectable. We already know enough to realize that we can design systems which allow for reducing the probability of incorrectable errors to arbitrarily low amounts - that's practically infinite repairability. No one is saying maintenance is ever going to become free.
You're focusing on the error rate, which is not actually the concern. You could have a perfectly working VAX in front of you, and it would be essentially a museum piece, because technology has moved on. Suggesting that any physical process is perfectable is...subject to qualification and requiring of strong evidence, shall we say. However, if true, it would still be insufficient.
Better is not universal nor uniformly distributed, therefore evolution occurs, therefore death has adaptive value even in otherwise ideal conditions, and there is no reason to believe in truly ideal conditions even assuming arbitrarily high technology.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. "Evolution" occurs, but we've already freed ourselves from the grasp of biological evolution, and are already employing a much more efficient and effective human-controlled evolution. There is no need for death of individuals to play a part in this any longer. Most of our adaptations can be freely removed and replaced without harming their user.
That's irrelevant. You're not going to "roll back" a brain replacement. Future technology does not allow arbitrary reversible manipulations of molecules. Creating new individuals is much less effort than rewriting old ones in any case.
But I'm not talking about brain replacements. Just regular technology. My point is that the evolution of collective human civilization is orders of magnitude faster than biological evolution of individual humans, making the latter irrelevant. The only "death" that happens in that faster evolution is loss of mindshare, these days most often seen as failure on the market.
You do not get to hand-wave away the fact of evolution, regardless of the level of technology. Populations change genetically over long periods of time, because math, and the idea that gene editing will not occur in the future (near or far) is not credible.
So no, I don't think this argument for species holds either.