Geoffrey MillerVerified account

The transhuman conception of "immortal life" does not solve the problem of death - it just delays metaphysical confrontations. (Not saying I would mind a brief extension, but downloadable consciousness into longer lasting matter answers no ultimate questions.)

I don't care about having metaphysical confrontations. I care about living long enough to see my great-great grandchildren thriving.

Mainstream media got it for once. Acceptance, real acceptance, of death eliminates fear. Once that's done, one is truly free to live.

And free to be extinguished in a blaze of noble glory. But then what?

Use screenshots instead of direct links. Let's not give them clicks and ad revenue.

Easier choice, certainly, for sites with a paywall.

I don't fear death, I've come to terms with the painful fact that I won't be able to learn everything I want. Not enough time. I made my choices years ago. I'd still like a few centuries or millenia extra. Not eternal. There has to be an end at some point.

There is a beauty and possibility of experiences within impermanence I think. Life without it makes me wonder what else could be lost; like states of deep awe. But I’m with you about sticking around much longer; just don’t reduct that time with “forever.”

The elimination of aging would only save someone from death by old age or related diseases; it does not make someone immortal. Given this, don't you think it would be rational to encourage acceptance of the certainty of eventual death? Do you think that is passivity?

It's pathetically passive to spend less than 5% of GDP on longevity research.