The problem that I see with this issue is not discovering the necessary medicine/medical technology to be immortal (although that is a problem with it). The problem I have with this is the moral issue of immortality; it's one of the most controversial moral conflicts I've ever thought about.
In my opinion, I don't think anyone should be immortal. Something about being infinite just seems too unreal to me. Nothing in this universe is infinite (well, there's theories...but hopefully you get what I'm saying), so creating a life form that lasts practically infinitely long just seems unnecessary and, well, wrong. Not to mention, who decides who gets to be immortal? I can understand MAYBE prolonging the life of a very important mind/scientist, but besides that exception, I really don't think anyone should live forever. Everyone starts their life, and ends it. What they do within that time is up to them (for the most part), and they must do what they can with the time they have.
This actually reminds me of this movie I recently saw, In Time. For those of you who don't know, I'm not going to explain the whole movie, but basically time is a currency, and people run on how much time they have (if they run out, they die). This allows people to become rich with time, and practically live forever. The movie focused on the immoral idea of one man living forever while the rest die and dream of a better life. I would recommend it, pretty good movie. But yeah, enough about that.
Okay...so I just watched the video now (after typing all that...), and I must say it looks intriguing, but it is hard for me to say when we will actually achieve the things mentioned in this. 2000 technology is pretty different from 2010 technology, so what happens over the course of a decade can be pretty unpredictable and can include unimaginable advancements. Plus, there's the whole controversy on whether or not "android robots" should become servants of humans, but to be honest I'm tired of typing and I'll save that argument for another time...