I think I'll have to back 'yummyfajitas on this one. The article does make some points, but a big part of it is just random insults at technologists and ridiculing their ideas. Some of it may be warranted, and I'm the first to take potshots at adtech, but there are limits. For me, this talk (and the few last ones of his too) reads a bit like "hahaha, look at those stupid, arrogant techies, they want to cure death, what a nonsense hahahaha".

You're not siding with 'yummyfajitas. You're (almost) doing what he refuses to do: pick an argument in Maciej's post ("techies shouldn't be trying to cure death") and rebutting it. If you fleshed that point out a little more you'd be going, rhetorically, in the opposite direction as him.

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.

>pick an argument in Maciej's post ("techies shouldn't be trying to cure death") and rebutting 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.

> 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.

You're right, but only in the most point-missingly literal sense.