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.
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.