I would argue that immortality should address problems like yours. It's not really immortality if normal, random lifetime ups and downs (the inverse of the regr

I would argue that immortality should address problems like yours. It's not really immortality if normal, random lifetime ups and downs (the inverse of the regression to the mean [1]) make half your population commit suicide every hundred years. That's a pathetic excuse for immortality, and you can't claim to have defeated death until people don't want to die just as much as they can accomplish that goal. Same way that it's not really immortality if you can still starve to death, or die because you got hit by a train and your seat of consciousness got obliterated, or die because your anti-aging medicines don't do anything about your risk of cancer. Defeating old age is the biggest obstacle right now, but defeating traumatic risk and psychiatric risk are just as important. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value is also relevant - consider "person has no unsolvable long-term problems and if maintained at their average level would live forever" to be the null hypothesis and "has a bad century and commits suicide" to be the observation.