Far more moral, perhaps. Perfectly moral? I doubt it. I don&#x27;t trust ourselves to be able to perfectly resolve the difficulties between being and having choice, and not making any immoral choices.<p>Also, I&#x27;m not a consequentialist; I don&#x27;t think morality is entirely determined by what impacts the choices have on others.<p>I&#x27;m not saying that it would be bad to extend life in this way, only that it would not be the same as what I believe is after life here.<p>And it would not be an end to death.<p>&gt; There&#x27;s a huge amount of theory on how fun and novelty work with enhanced cognitive ability, with many potential solutions to that problem.<p>I am not speaking of becoming merely bored. Mere entertainment is nothing much.<p>I am speaking of one&#x27;s experiences ceasing to have an after which one can distinguish from one&#x27;s before.<p>I am speaking of death, of ceasing to be * .<p>A finite state machine must either reach the same exact state more than once (in which case it cannot distinguish whether it is the first time it has entered that state or not, as that would be part of the state), or it must halt. And if it does reach the same exact state more than once, there is no difference for it whether it reaches a state a third time or not. If its experiences map 1 to 1 with its state, then its experiences have a finite length corresponding to something not more than its total number of states.<p>(If you don&#x27;t find this convincing, I expect I could provide a more convincing argument based on secret sharing schemes.)<p>Current understanding of physics includes the Bekenstein bound. I see no justification for your apparent belief that a problem with the Bekenstein bound will be found. If the understanding of the Bekenstein bound is correct (and I see no reason to assume that it is not), then to have an unlimited lifespan in the universe, one&#x27;s volume must increase without bound. This is of course, a very slow rate of expansion, with the lower bound being something like, your radius has to be at least sqrt(log(age × K_1) + K_2), where K_1 and K_2 are some constants.<p>I see no reason to expect that the Bekenstein bound will be broken, and not replaced with something at least similar.<p>* rather, ceasing to be&#x2F;live in the universe as it is, which I think you would consider to be what death is.