It's ironic, I know, that I'm responding to your argument that "this article has nothing to rebut" by saying that your own comments are deliberately designed not to be rebuttable. But, it's true. This article self-evidently makes points that can be disagreed with, and your comments are designed to avoid that trap.
I happen to agree with most (maybe all?) of what's in Maciej's post. But my problem isn't that Stucchio disagrees with it; my problem is that he refuses to engage honestly with it, and then writes assumptively that we must, as fellow tech people, feel the same way. The reasoning he's used it embarrassingly weak, and I object to being assumptively affiliated with it.
What argument? All Ceglowski offers in this article with regard to life extension is his bald assertion that such projects are 'delusional'. There's nothing there to rebut.
Stating that a claim should be disregarded because it is presented as a bald assertion without support is a rebuttal.
It dismisses problems like death and AI risk solely by describing them as "fake". No argument is made for this - the reader in the tribe of the author is assumed to already agree. It asserts that politics should control tech. Again no argument is made, because the reader is assumed to already agree. Similarly for the idea that techies somehow owe something to random (globally) wealthy people who are physically close to them.
What, exactly, is the argument you think I should rebut?