Thinking mortality is intrinsic to being human is pretty close to saying that it's right and proper people should die, and I really don't accept that framing either.

There's value in acknowledging we probably can't solve death, and coming to terms with that, but if you had a button sitting in front of you that would completely eradicate cardiovascular disease, you'd press it, right? There's no form of death that I'd even think about keeping, with the exception of suicide and maybe execution.

Are you sure you don't just feel that way because you consider death an inevitability? I agree completely that fixing death from old age would fundamentally change people's worldviews and would indeed change what it means to be human. But that doesn't mean it's not a cause worth devoting effort to.

> But that doesn't mean it's not a cause worth devoting effort to.

Why?

Ultimately you need to address what is the meaning of life, and what is your purpose.

I think if you offered immortality to me tomorrow I wouldn't take it.

> I think if you offered immortality to me tomorrow I wouldn't take it.

I think if we offered it to you on your deathbed, as you are seconds away from it, you would.

Only if it cured what ailed me. I would personally be skeptical of such an offer. I would think "Yeah. Sure. And live like this forever without relief or escape. No thanks, buddy."

Not everyone frames such problems the same.

To be clear, I'm not discussing a "monkey's paw" sort of scenario, but a legitimate good-faith offer of immortality.

A cure for your ailment is almost certainly implied by an offer of immortality. If we are capable of such a feat we will almost certainly have solved the problem of making humans youthful and healthy indefinitely.

And realistically speaking, death would still be optional, just not forced upon you and your hopes and dreams by random ailments.

If suffering is a problem to solve, then so is death. This is evident to all who grieved.