I wish we'd reframe the way this gets talked about. It's pedantic, but we can't escape death. All matter in the universe will eventually decay or transmute into

I wish we'd reframe the way this gets talked about. It's pedantic, but we can't escape death. All matter in the universe will eventually decay or transmute into something very different from what it now is. And my answer to the question posed of when you'd want to die is unknown. I can't say 150 years. I can't imagine a specific age I'd hit at which I'd want to die. But at the same time, while I might want to outlive the Earth, I don't want to outlive all baryonic matter and somehow persist into the age of the universe in which all other matter is black holes, and there is neither light nor sound, nothing to touch, and all I would ever experience is quadrillions of years of utter loneliness. There is no immortality and nobody would want it if they really thought about what it would entail. But cessation of aging would be wonderful. I'd love to live indefinitely and not have my body or mind noticeably decay. Research like this should be done, but we need to be honest about what we're trying to accomplish. Nobody will ever escape death, and when you start getting large enough numbers, I'm not sure it would make any difference to live longer. Even if we somehow achieve brain uploading, which I don't see entails you living longer so much as making copies of yourself with different identities, every storage medium has a capacity limit. At some point, the only way to form new memories to evict old ones, and the experience of living 90 trillion years won't be any different than 1 trillion years if 1 trillion years of experience is all you can store. That said, we need to also be humble about what is even achievable. The very idea of a high resolution scan capturing the entirety of your brain state is already science fiction. We have another home page story right now about controversy over whether the brain has a microbiome. The only reason that's a question is because we have no means of opening up a living brain to see. We can't even accurately measure a person's body fat without dissection. The limitations of non-invasive remote imaging that don't kill the animal being imaged are quite severe and constitute a large reason medicine isn't more effective than it is. There is no technology we are on a known arc toward achieving that will make it possible to capture molecular-level detail of an entire brain as it is still running. I don't see how you can base an entire research project on a premise that doesn't exist and we have no idea if it ever will exist.