The disappearance of your experience is no gift, no matter how well you wrap it. I fail to understand how easily many people differentiate between near-term life extension (chemotherapy, beta blockers) and long-term life extension. The &quot;natural&quot; lifespan is a form of anchoring. Anything less feels like you&#x27;re being fleeced, but ask for too much more, and you&#x27;re being greedy. But this is nonsense. Nothing, short of religion, prescribes that a certain lifespan is the best one. If you ask for ten more years of quality, everybody thinks it&#x27;s a worthwhile pursuit of medical research. Come to the end of those ten and ask for ten more, and it&#x27;s the same worthwhile pursuit without end. Why, then, when we simply apply the shorthand of calling it 100 or 1000 years, does death suddenly sound like a welcome idea-- an idea we think is right to <i>impose</i> on the population? If the common lifespan were 40 years, do you believe you&#x27;d consider 80 to be just as silly? If 80 is not so silly under any circumstance, then why is it so special that 160 is wrong to desire?