[makeitshine]

It's not possible to escape death, and all timelines will feel short when it comes to their end. Reducing the suffering of life, whether mental or physical, seems a more achievable pursuit. To die without cancer, dementia, chronic pain or the so many other ailments would be amazing.

[JoshTriplett]

They go hand in hand. Any reasonable path to eliminating mortality will entail eliminating aging and degenerative conditions.

Often, when people first imagine living much much longer, they imagine having more years feeling 90 or progressively worse, rather than having more years feeling 50 or 30. But much of what makes 90 feel 90 is the degenerative problems of age that also end up killing you.

[zerocrates]

If the pathway to where you're looking to go runs mostly through a fight against age-related degeneration, why not pitch it that way and just avoid the controversy that "ending death" attracts as a concept?

Who's out there handwringing against fighting, just to pick a random example, dementia?

[xvector]

If we told someone 200 years ago that I'd be typing this on a pane of glass that talks to satellites in low earth orbit at the speed of light, accessing the entire repository of human knowledge while hurtling through the air at 600 MPH in a man made bird, they'd call it impossible (and probably burn us at the stake.)

If we told the same person that we have managed to create a crude facsimile of intelligence and expect to have full intelligence in our lifetimes, running on lightning trapped in purified sand, their mind would simply break.

I am confident that humanity will solve death on all relevant timescales, out to the heat-death of the universe itself.

I am optimistic that today will be looked back on as "that era when people died, isn't that sad?"

[nullindividual]

No, it isn’t sad that we die. It’s extremely important that we do — if not just for getting rid of some of humanity’s worst humans.

[8372049]

> accessing the entire repository of human knowledge

I know this is a common trope, but just think about how far it is from the truth. And not just because of business secrets, classified information, privacy rules and so on—think of the signal to noise ratio, the vast quantities of "fake news", propaganda, misconceptions, not to mention how hard it is to find reliable and detailed information about niche stuff. Information is vastly more accessible than ever before, but we still have a very long way to go.

[anthk]

200 years ago were close to the industrial revolution. Not so far fetched to stories from "The Anachronopete" and Jules Verne's novels.

Look at this, from the 1700's:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passarola

[getlawgdon]

The entire repository of human knowledge? Certainly not.