Just think of all the video games you could play..., all the people you could troll..., the debates and arguments and the points ;)

Well, you see immortal will mean in the scientific view, a very strong body defense mechanism(immune & physical), the genes of Ageing not causing it anymore, Body replenishing cells it currently cannot repair like neurons . But it will NOT mean it will become impossible to kill yourself, you can always cut yourself in pieces and unlike fairy tales you won't join back.

So Yeah Becoming immortal would be cool, you could do all you want to do in life. Life will stop giving just one chance to you(infinite then) and one fine day when you feel life has become a burden you could just kill yourself under sedatives.

Once such technology could even be achieved, the trivial part such as emotional conflict is a small problem. The only way such feat could ever be achieved is through machine. The other through a more spiritual method which only one in a few million ever succeed. Their existence praised, then rumoured, then made a story.. and finally a mere legend. But I assume all you science geeks wouldnt be interested. The singularity movement is a term to describe an advancement of science and technology so profound that it represents a rupture in the fabric of the human race. The exponential growth of our technology theoritically proves that machines would be so intelligent... we could be part of them. Thus, and end to disease. Who knows someday a deadly virus wipes mankind and this might be the only way we stay alive. It is common knowledge that humanity wont last forever.

Maybe it's our current social and economic system that makes immortality so undesirable?

Before I start, I will be functioning with a few assumptions about factors that were left ambiguous in the question. Immortality is never dying (not an assumption), but the legal definition of death is brain death. I don't think that anyone would count subsisting in a persistent vegetative state as "living" in the immortality sense, at least not if it's permanent and consciousness is forever gone; moreover, irreversible damage to the body over time would necessarily lead to an end of consciousness, so it isn't a viable objection. I think the best way to justify the existence of immortality in a case such as this is with some form of perfect regenerative healing or infinite resurrection.

With these out of the way, I will now launch into my justification of my advocacy for immortality. One of the initial knee-jerk responses many people have to the concept of immortality is that an individual faced with eternity would become terribly bored. There are several problems with this, however. First and foremost, I have serious doubt that a person from the 19th century that had retained their youth would find themselves bored amidst the astounding technological and social advancements that have been made over the last two-hundred years. Humanity advances at a sufficient rate that there will be novel stimuli for at least millennia yet to come. Second, if the said immortal gets bored, they have eternity for rekindled interest. Even if they go insane, there's an infinite stretch of time for them to be cured. Finally, this immortal person has a human brain, so it will probably be doing human processing. Anything else would be changing the bargain, so unfair. Since the human brain doesn't have infinite capacity, yet the person would perceive an infinite number of events, they will necessarily forget everything they ever experience, albeit after a long while. This presents the opportunity for everything to seem novel once more.

The second objection usually presented is the fact that all those an immortal person loved would perish around them. This is very true and very tragic; however, it is not a deal-breaker and is nigh insignificant when considered on the same scale as the life-span of the immortal. Most of us lose loved ones within our lives. When this happens, the loss seems unbearable. Over time, however, our sense of loss decreases as a natural part of the grieving cycle. Widowed spouses remarry, parents who lost their children have more, and children who lost their parents move on and perhaps adopt a new parent figure. "Yes," one might say, "but the immortal would become desensitized over time and form no new healthy relationships!" There are two responses I would have to this: One, when we see this happening in our lives, it is when lots of people die in close sequence that are close to someone else, not over the course of millennia, centuries, or usually even decades. When people have the opportunity to properly grieve and move on for a lost one, they can go one to form new healthy relationships. Two, even if the immortal became desensitized, they have eternity to re-sensitize, and if the former can occur, the latter should too.

The final and best objection that I hear is the claim that becoming trapped is a statistical necessity over an infinite period of time. This is very true, and the only response I have to that is that becoming freed from that trap is also a statistical necessity. Things like black holes and the universe's heat death are difficult to deal with, since they deal with absolute destruction.