Yes, I was trying to address specifically that I think you are arguing a points with is somewhat orthogonal to the current discussion, because both are using similar terms to mean different things.  Your terminology is more correct (you are addressing death as a specific concept, and it&#x27;s inevitability), while they are addressing age extension, possibly to it&#x27;s logical conclusion a the end of the universe, but using &quot;death&quot; to denote that, when it&#x27;s obvious there are other causes of death that cannot be stopped.<p>In other words, I think there is no real difference of opinion, just a difference in terms making it seem so. This appears to have been exacerbated slightly through your flowery description of your point, which I take to be: &quot;Death of is impossible to stop in the end, and giving the false impression that it is may be harmful.  That said, if we can retard it in humans to a large degree, that&#x27;s useful.  Additionally, death serves a useful purpose in many systems, so we shouldn&#x27;t lose sight of this.&quot;