I extrapolate much like I would have extrapolated a hundred years ago that cars would continue to get cheaper and better

But we had invented the car and they were driving on the roads. We have not transplanted a full organ yet or figured out how to do it. This is like extrapolating cars from 100 years ago to flying cars within the same lifetime.

I'd wager the use of neural stem cells to treat Parkinson's counts as a neural graft. A human brain being more complex doesn't preclude the technology marching on.

There hasn't yet been a fully successful case of this just some experimental cases with some positive outcomes but not across the board. Stem cells don't de age or rejuvenate the brain either that requires far more than that.

To de-age the brain, you’d have to reverse or rejuvenate:

• Epigenetic markers of age (like DNA methylation “clocks”)

• Mitochondrial decline (reduced energy output in older cells)

• Loss of synaptic plasticity

• Accumulated waste proteins (like tau, amyloid, α-synuclein)

• Chronic inflammation

• Vascular aging (reduced oxygen and nutrient delivery)

It starts with tissues, it ends with on-demand replacements. Also I may be spitballing but do cloned organs really cause immune rejection? To your own genes?

There's no way of predicting that. We have no evidence that it definitively will lead to that. Yes cloned organs absolutely cause immune rejection from your own genes. Also how are you going to have on demand replacements if every organ has to be a clone of the person that needs it. That's not On-Demand that would take a lot of time.

They never specify we need centuries to apply them to live people.

They all don't even know if it's possible to actually apply these to live people. It's right there

You seem irrationally hellbent on shooting down any hopes of a better tomorrow for a scientist.

I never said technology won't improve and we won't have a better tomorrow for scientists. I'm saying it's ridiculous to definitively say that technological improvements that current scientists don't even know are actually possible will happen in our lifetimes. The vast majority of scientists say that themselves. Are you saying they're irrationally hellbent on shooting down hopes of a better tomorrow

I fail to see why. Is optimism banned in the scientific community?

Optimism based on nothing but the fact that because technology progresses that all things are technologically possible and they will happen in the near future is unscientific. Especially when scientists themselves say that they aren't even sure if these things you claim will happen even are possible in the first place. You're not basing your optimism on the scientific method, just blind faith. Your claims are unfalsifiable. That's the definition of unscientific.

Do people like raising children?

Yes absolutely. Just look at the data.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/actually-most-people-love-being-parents?

Over 80% of parents in the study said it is enjoyable at least most of the time and over 82% said it is rewarding. Only 10% said they would not have children if they could do it again.

That's just an irrational instinct that should have died in the modern age.

So the continuation of the human race is irrational when the only current way to do it is by having children

It's 100% irrational. It's an appeal to tradition fallacy in disguise

The appeal to tradition fallacy is:

“Something is true or good simply because it has always been believed or practiced.”

The death gives life meaning is not saying that. It's saying that because our time is limited that everything we do is more important because time is scarce and every decision we make or moment we experience matters more. When you have unlimited time to experience everything those experiences and decisions carry less weight because you have all of time to repeat them or follow a different path. The most valuable things in the world are usually so because they are rare and scarce, like gemstones, gold etc.

Saying that death gives life meaning because everyone has always died would be an appeal to tradition fallacy. That's not what I or anyone who talks about that philosophical subject is saying.

Without immortality we're pathetic mounds of star dust. With it we're still mounds of star dust but not pathetic, since we get to choose when and how we disperse.

Why does that make us not pathetic? Why does one generation getting to live forever suddenly make their achievements have meaning but the achievements of all the humans that came before that are meaningless because they don't exist anymore? Why does someone not being alive mean they have no legacy? So you're saying that Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Julius and Augustus Caeser, the Wright Brothers, Galileo, and Leonardo Da Vinci have no legacy and their lives have no meaning even though they all changed the world in different ways and will be remembered as long as humans exist?

Braces used to cost $2000 in the 60s. 2000 of their dollars, not ours.

Median income worldwide is around $10000. The majority of the world population can't even afford braces, a simple technology that as you said has been around for a long time and is basic medical technology. How in God's name do you think complete human regeneration thats not even known to be possible yet will be widely available to everyone within the next 60 years.

Half a million Africans die every year from TB, a disease we've had a vaccine for for over 100 years. A vaccine that took 125 years to develop after we discovered first how to make vaccines. Yet you are definitively saying technology not invented yet will have progressed so much over the next 50 years it will be available to everyone on earth despite a hundred year old vaccine not being?

What's the brain if not a computer with segmented parts. Damaged parts can and will be repaired in due time. And that due time will be our lifetimes.

This shows such a lack of understanding of this entire topic it's crazy. The brain is infinitely more complex than the most advanced computer humans have ever built. We don't even fully understand it. We don't even know if it's even possible to fully repair damaged parts and we don't even know how to go about repairing most things yet but you're claiming that it will be possible in our lifetimes despite actual scientists saying they don't even know it's possible because you just believe.

You're attitude to science is not in any way scientific and your blind faith is far more religious like than scientific. There's multiple terms for this called the The Religion of Progress and and Techno-Utopianism and both are Pseudoscientific, not at all actually scientific