Plus ideas can change faster as culture changes.
That said, there may be ways to overcome this and I still think it's worth working on not having to die. Though trying to determine purpose behind existential questions becomes difficult pretty quickly.
Even if we figure it out since sex and having children is core to biological life and the basis for the replicating genetic code that eventually lead to us - not sure how we'd solve that. Guess we also better get working on space colonization for our start trek future.
I'd be interested to know how our species' life span has changed over the past few million years. We live significantly longer than other great apes, that's probably relevant.
What about saving premature babies and babies with congenital diseases?
Either way, life philosophies that would reflect such a claim don't have comment length "arguments" that would be convincing to anyone on any level. Some things do not lend themselves to logic. Some things require more than a few paragraphs and an argument. And sometimes, those things, are best served by parsimony, rather than loquacious debate.
You have made the exact same argument that you are defending, it boils down to "you do not understand my world view, if you understood more maybe you would."
I understand not everything fits in a comment box, but when you choose to participate in a discussion then a one line excerpt of "wisdom" is hardly useful. You cannot just imply someone is wrong and not discuss why. This isn't twitter, there is room to get started.
All I ask is some substance above "Have you considered that you might be wrong?"
Because yes, I have considered that, and I am eager to talk about it.
I don't expect that you'd be nodding agreeably. But I do think one with a bit more perspective might engage in a more productive manner.
All you have done in both your comments is slight the platform and slight myself, adding nothing.
I believe I understand his argument; It would be a waste to spend life chasing immortality, as you would waste the only life you had in search of more of it, thus getting to truly enjoy neither.
But I am still glad there are people chasing it, as it means we get to enjoy more life than if they were not.
The parent comment's sentiment only really makes sense if you yourself are chasing more life, and even then only if you are destined to fail. The last 50 years alone should show us that more quality life is an extremely reasonable goal. Adding nearly 20 years to the average life expectancy, from 60 to 80 for males in Australia for example.
Why should I reconsider? What about your view do you feel is better than living healthier for longer?
The way I see it, if you take advantage of doctors at all you are already competing against your own ideals.
We have made huge leaps in health such that even if we die at 80, our lives will have been much more healthy and active up until that point.
If I can be healthy and active until 80 and then die at 100, then I will do that. It isn't immortality they are after, it's just more high quality life.
There is nothing graceful, or more respectable, about succumbing to death because it is the social norm at a certain age. I will cling on to life until I can no longer.