"removing death" seems to the the absolute extreme position in this discussion. It also seems the most unlikely in the next couple hundred years. It seems that this is the thing you have the most problem with -- the selfish, immature attitude of wanting to never die.
I got the gist of what you were saying, but it doesn't track with me. Of course people don't want to die: that's the whole idea of being alive. Not dying. Sounds silly, but you can't be alive unless you really have an aversion to dying. Else you'd jump off a house roof or something to see what it was like to fly and that would be that.
If you feel some threshold is going to be crossed where we're non-human -- and we're not already there -- then I think it's up to you to define where that is. It would help advance the argument. We could discuss what attributes of humanity we lose when we cross that line. Otherwise all we have is the extreme case -- never dying -- and that's nowhere near being on the table as a realistic possibility.
I'm 43, so that makes me half-way there, more or less. Of course I could kick it tomorrow. Would I like to live to be 250? Well heck, I liked living to 43, and that's a lot more than my great ancestors could have done.
Imagine what somebody from 10,000 BC would think of us: living to 110 sometimes, having major parts like hips replaced with plastic parts. Artificial hearts, animal organ transplants in the near future, medicine that makes you frisky when you're 90. Seems to me we've already passed the point of being non or trans-human. We're already in this world that longevity research opponents describe.
I got the gist of what you were saying, but it doesn't track with me. Of course people don't want to die: that's the whole idea of being alive. Not dying. Sounds silly, but you can't be alive unless you really have an aversion to dying. Else you'd jump off a house roof or something to see what it was like to fly and that would be that.
If you feel some threshold is going to be crossed where we're non-human -- and we're not already there -- then I think it's up to you to define where that is. It would help advance the argument. We could discuss what attributes of humanity we lose when we cross that line. Otherwise all we have is the extreme case -- never dying -- and that's nowhere near being on the table as a realistic possibility.
I'm 43, so that makes me half-way there, more or less. Of course I could kick it tomorrow. Would I like to live to be 250? Well heck, I liked living to 43, and that's a lot more than my great ancestors could have done.
Imagine what somebody from 10,000 BC would think of us: living to 110 sometimes, having major parts like hips replaced with plastic parts. Artificial hearts, animal organ transplants in the near future, medicine that makes you frisky when you're 90. Seems to me we've already passed the point of being non or trans-human. We're already in this world that longevity research opponents describe.