Contra Pellissier, I think it is fair to say that not everybody would want to spend 10,000 years living what passes for the lives they are now living, when the reality of suicide demonstrates that not everybody wants to live even the Biblical allotment of three score and ten.To which point JimF applies some useful pressure:
And if you **could** live for hundreds or thousands of years (barring accidents), suicide might then become the commonest way out. This is a separate issue from the current **plausibility** of the whole >Hist "longevity" project, and discussing the **desirability** of the indefinite prolongation of "the life we are now living" only plays into the hands of those who scream "deathist" even at those who merely express skepticism at the **scientific** legitimacy of the project.Oh, yes, I quite agree with you and I agree that this is actually also an important point. That is why I begin the post with this barb: "Robot Cultist Hank Pellissier argues that magic would be cool if it were real as a way of distracting your attention from the fact that magic is not real."
There is no question that the transhumanoids much prefer arguing with folks who think the techno-transcendental sooperpowers that obsess them are dangerous or bad to those who point out instead that these obsessions of theirs are conceptually incoherent, pseudo-scientific, pathologically symptomatic, and politically reactionary as I do.
Bioconservatives who wring their hands about AI and singularity and clone armies and post-humanoidal soopermen and so on are engaging in "a supernative futurology" that perfectly supplements and supports the superlative futurology of the Robot Cultists, just as the bioconservative championing of homo naturalis and the transhumanoid championing of homo superior are co-supportive supplements sustaining eugenicism.
While these hyperbolic discursive formations battle it out as eternal foes they also succeed in delineating the terms of technodevelopmental contestation in public discourse in ways that divert attention and concern away from the actual vicissitudes of funding, regulation, discovery, publication, production, distribution, education, marketing, cost, risk, benefit to the actual diversity of actual stakeholders in actual history onto eschatological narratives of progress, destiny, transcendence, apocalypse and activating irrational pathologies of dread and desire that already tend to freight technoscience discourse.