So then, what about the people fixated on immortality? If living beyond their natural lifetime is a negative obsession at any point (i.e. once their quality of life is pure suffering) then what? Why would the same logic not apply to people kept alive beyond normal limits for hunter gatherers, either in terms of age or remaining quality of life? Do we have an obligation to use every artificial construction invented that could keep us alive, and who is that obligation to?

Given that many conditions are irreparable, the general direction of the logic that we always want to live if enough things could be changed (i.e. so we enjoy life) is a truism that doesn't mean anything. Even if all forms of dementia get cures, they won't be restorative for those with it today.. for example.

I am not telling you what you should or should not do. I am posing a question. If you get a heart attack and refuse medical care for example I don't consider that suicide, you will die as a result of your inaction but you did not initiate your death, it was not your intenr or premeditation that caused it.

As far as chasing immortality, assuming you had any say in it, any means of staying alive is natural unless you are talking about supernatural things.

I think I understand the core of your argument, which, if the world were perfect and everyone had equal access to resources, I might agree with. But the reality is that there are a lot of people that cannot change their circumstances, do not have the money for medication/therapy, or do not have the social or cultural support for acquiring or even expressing the desire for medication/therapy. I am wondering if you have ever experienced severe depression, be it in yourself or in someone close to you. "Hatred for life" is a massive overestimate of the amount of autonomy someone has over their own thoughts when depressed.

I have experienced all that and more. I speak my experience not my opinion.

I am interested in facts not emotions. Facts work. Let us agree 1+1=2 then let's talk about 1+3 and 2+1,etc... Let us agree that even if you are helpless and hopeless against the realities of life, that is the driver of suicidal tendencies (not depression neccesarily).

How can we solve a problem if we don't agree it is a problem and we don't agree what the prolem is?

Then let us talk about the impossible and let us talk about defeating reality. I would love to talk about how to overcome the impossible. Or we can agree a person is hopeless and helpless against life , they lack control over their thoughts or emotionsand for that reason their only escape is suicide. But let us use facts and critical thinking. I tried emotions, I tried it all but only truth helped me.

Why are so many technical people on here dead set on the impossible and a hopeless reality? This very technology we use to talk to each other was impossible. Not improbable but dead set impossible even half a century or less ago! It should be impossible or me to be alive and talking to you but here I am! Why is hope so unpopular? Ok, you can kill yourself if you want, society approves if it makes you feel better. Now can we talk honestly and critically about the facts, and can you pose factual adversarial challenges against my argument?

I am really glad you found hope, that you’re enjoying the ride, and that you’re trying to help others enjoy the ride.

> Yes, I do. That's because of the life they know. Not existing to begin with sounds great because of your relative knowledge of what existing means.

Let me ask you about that “relative knowledge”. Are you under the impression their relative knowledge is lacking? Or has it occurred to you knowing more and knowing how good life can be can make you appreciate life less?