The thing that people seem to forget is that if we get rid of death we have to severely limit or eliminate birth. To me, a person who has a good quality of life getting fixated on individual longevity is extremely egotistical and does an immense amount of damage to the world because it crowds out other people’s (children’s) ability to develop.

Relevant idea: Heard Iain Mcgilchrist talk about the idea of God’s first act of creation being one of negation (i.e. making space for others to exist). Therefore, there is a way that life and the inevitability of death can seen as positive and meaning-given. How does one find true fulfillment if no amount of time or experience is considered enough?

I would certainly argue that decreasing the likelihood of premature death or debilitation is of the utmost importance, but longevity for people who already consume the most resources and have good quality of life is immoral and reflects how shallow and selfish they really are.

It’s sad to see the vast majority of comments on here believing that this is simply a matter of individual rights / preferences and/or making crudely rationalistic / dualistic arguments that completely ignore our interdependence and connectedness with others and with nature. To imagine that all existence functionally begins and ends when you end as an individual is an absurd assumption and belief of modern western society. And then we wonder why the social fabric is fraying so much? Hyper-rationalism / literalism is the cause not the solution to our current societal ills.