You&#x27;re conflating wanting death and accepting that it will happen, in both the case of oneself and family&#x2F;friends.  You think that &quot;acceptance&quot; is some BS we cooked up because we had no other choice, and that&#x27;s a fine position, but don&#x27;t caricature acceptance as actively wanting death.<p>&gt; do you want to die?<p>No. I also want an infinite supply of resources (for me, and for everybody else, why not), the ability to experience any scenario I can dream up with any people I want even if they don&#x27;t want it, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.  The inevitability of death is perhaps a classic denial, but there are infinite other ways you can&#x27;t always have what you want.  (At the risk of sounding defeatist, trite, and in favor of The Order of Things.)  If you could wave a wand and force any person to love you, would it be meaningful?  If you were guaranteed to get whatever you wanted in any other sphere?  Maybe I&#x27;m rambling here, but the point is, how will removing death solve all the other problems that come with billions of autonomous agents with generally incompatible wills existing together in a single, inherently meaningless universe with (probably) immutable physical laws and finite time, matter, and energy?<p>OK, so solving death is an incremental improvement, and thus may be worth it to some... but perhaps I&#x27;ve described a reason not everybody is going to be obsessed with it -- it&#x27;s just one form of a vastly large general problem.<p>Also, I&#x27;m wondering what &quot;more people car[ing]&quot; about eradicating death would look like to you.  The article discusses &quot;digitizing the brain&quot;, there are thousands of scientists and dollars spent on eradicating certain cancers and other diseases, and many other sciences that could be applied to this problem.  You&#x27;re welcome to fund&#x2F;conduct your own research, but apparently other people have more pressing concerns.