> This feels a little like saying "I like death, therefore everyone else must die too." Well you sound like "I'm so scared of death that I'm ready to pay for i

> This feels a little like saying "I like death, therefore everyone else must die too." Well you sound like "I'm so scared of death that I'm ready to pay for immortality with eternal suffering for the rest of humanity". I don't like death in particular but I can admit I enjoy being born in the XX century and not being a slave in the mines of Ramses II. And I'm not too bothered by death because I'm already immortal in a sense. My kids are literally a piece of me that keep on living, I see no reason to worry much about the meatbag I currently reside in. > Again I ask: if we already lived forever, and we were running into those scientific, engineering, and social problems that death supposedly "solves", then would your solution be to start killing everyone approaching 100 years old? You ask it like some smart theoretical brain teaser whereas it's simple reality. Your gametes don't age and it cost nothing to nature, however the rest of you do age. Ever think why is that? That is THE solution found by natural selection, literally kill everyone nearing 100 years old. And no, reset of body and consciousness to a clean state is not the same as end of life by supernova, it's the opposite. It's a way to ensure continuation of life. > This is unfortunately quite accurate for the time being. But death is a rather blunt solution to these problems, and I believe there are better ones The problem is I don't see another solution for corruption of humans. If humans are the ones who are responsible of implementing the solution then they'll just corrupt it too. It's like trying to reason your way out of insanity, doesn't work because your reasoning mechanism is affected. Solution has to be outside of our control like death is now. Conquering death would be a mistake even though I don't really see a way to prevent it long term.